ARLINGTON, Virginia, December 15, 2008 (ENS) – Jellyfish blooms are ruining some of the world’s most beautiful vacation spots, according to a new online report by the National Science Foundation on massive jellyfish swarms in U.S. waters and around the world.

At least 150 million people around the world are exposed to jellyfish every year, the report says. Swarms of stinging jellyfish and jellyfish-like animals are transforming many world-class fisheries and tourist destinations into “jellytoriums” that are intermittently jammed with the pulsating, gelatinous creatures.

This is happening in U.S. waters from Hawaii to the Chesapeake Bay, where 500,000 people are stung by jellyfish every year.

Another 200,000 people are stung every year in Florida, and 10,000 are stung in Australia by the deadly Portuguese man-of-war, according to the report.

These jellyfish explosions are generated by human activities, some scientists believe. Possible causes include pollution, climate change, introductions of non-native species, overfishing and the presence of artificial structures, such as oil and gas rigs.

Jellyfish swarms have damaged fisheries, fish farms, seabed mining operations, desalination plants and large ships, and they have disabled nuclear power plants by clogging intake pipes.

Dense jellyfish swarm in the Gulf of Mexico
(Photo by Monty Graham)

In the Gulf of Mexico’s densest jellyfish swarms there are more jellyfish than there is water – 100 jellyfish can occupy each cubic meter of water.

“I’m often asked whether a single, overarching condition is triggering jellyfish swarms in diverse locations,” says Monty Graham of Alabama’s Dauphin Island Sea Lab on a barrier island in the Gulf of Mexico. Graham says the abnormally large, dense or frequent jellyfish swarms are “a symptom of an ecosystem that has been tipped off balance by environmental stresses.”

“The exact nature of such balance-tipping environmental stresses may vary from place to place and usually involve unique interactions with local ecology,” Graham explains. “But such stresses are often caused by people.”

So, just as a weakened person is vulnerable to opportunistic diseases, stressed ecosystems are vulnerable to infestations of jellyfish.

“There is clear, clean evidence that certain types of human-caused environmental stresses are triggering jellyfish swarms in some locations,” William Hamner of the University of California at Los Angeles says in the report.

These stresses include the introduction of jellyfish species into non-native habitats by ships; the formation of ultra-polluted areas, known as Dead Zones, where jellyfish face few predators and competitors; and increases in water temperatures, which accelerate the growth and reproduction of many jellyfish species.

As prey, jellyfish are eaten by seabirds, salmon, sun fish, turtles and other gelatinous creatures.

But as marine turtles have disappeared, jellyfish have proliferated. All seven species of sea turtles eat jellyfish and all seven species are endangered. Their survival is threatened by fishing lines that trap them, pollution, beach development, climate change and sales of turtles and turtle parts.

Box jellyfish in Hawaii (Photo
courtesy Waikiki Aquarium)

Jellyfish are not all bad – scientists are identifying ecological services provided by jellyfish. For instance, recent studies show that the tentacles dangling from the Bering Sea’s large jellyfish provide hiding places for young pollock that are pursued by other predators but have grown too big for the jellyfish to eat.

Most species of jellyfish and jellyfish-like animals are not harmful to people, according to the National Science Foundation report. But it warns that all true jellyfish and some species of jellyfish-like creatures sting – and a single stinging tentacle may be studded with thousands of stingers.

Stinging gelatinous creatures cause various reactions in people, ranging from no noticeable sensation to rashes, and some cases, death.

Australia’s beaches host many types of toxic gelatinous animals, including the Portuguese man-of-war and the world’s most venomous animal, the Chironex fleckeri, which can kill a person in under three minutes. In addition, the potentially deadly Irukandji jellyfish, currently increasing in number, are small enough to slip through nets that protect Australia’s beaches from the larger Chironex.

Beware, warns the report. Gelatinous creatures that are harmful to people live in every ocean.

Click here to view the report, “Jellyfish Gone Wild: Environmental Change and Jellyfish Swarms.”

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.

WASHINGTON, DC, December 4, 2008 (ENS) – The U.S. Supreme Court is wrestling with the difficulty of valuing fish and aquatic organisms with little or no commercial worth, hearing arguments in a legal dispute over what steps older power plants should take to limit water use and minimize environmental harm.

In oral arguements Tuesday, the Bush administration urged the court to allow federal regulators to use cost-benefit analysis when crafting such requirements – a view rejected by a lower court last year.

A majority of justices appeared skeptical of the Bush administration’s arguments, but seemed keen to find middle ground that would allow for some considerations of costs and benefits.

The legal issue rests on the interpretation of a provision in the Clean Water Act that authorizes the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to require power plants install “the best available technology for minimizing adverse environmental impact” from cooling water intake structures.

Seawater intake for power plant
cooling (Photo courtesy FPI)

The environmental concern is a serious one. U.S. power plants pull more than 200 billion gallons of water a day from reservoirs, lakes and rivers to cool machinery or, in the case of nuclear power plants, to cool reactors. The practice kills large numbers of fish and other aquatic organisms that are drawn into intake pipes along with cooling water.

But the economic concern also is considerable. Newer power plants are constructed with closed-cycle cooling systems that alleviate much of the concern, but retrofitting older plants can be costly.

Industry groups contend broad technology requirements for all older plants could force some to close and others to raise electricity prices, all for environmental benefits unequal to costs.

Heeding that concern, a rule finalized in 2004 by the Bush administration allowed some 550 older plants to chose among several alternatives to reduce environmental harm from cooling water intake structures, allowing them to avoid installing the best available technology if the costs outweighed the benefits.

Six states and a coalition of environmental groups, led by Riverkeeper, sued, arguing the Clean Water Act does not allow EPA to conduct cost-benefit analysis when crafting the cooling water intake rules.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit agreed with that view and struck down the regulation, prompting the appeal to the Supreme Court by the Bush administration and several utilities.

U.S. Deputy Solicitor General Daryl Joseffer told the Supreme Court justices on Tuesday that the statute’s language is ambiguous and gives the EPA deference to balance costs and benefits.

“For more than 30 years, EPA has construed the Clean Water Act to permit it to consider the relationship between costs and benefits in setting limits on water intake,” Joseffer said.

When lawmakers wrote the statute in 1972, they understood “that consideration of cost and benefits was not incompatible with the application of a best technology standard,” he added.

But several justices challenged that view and wondered how EPA could fairly weigh the costs and benefits of the technology versus fish and aquatic organisms.

While the costs of the technology are clear, Justice David Souter said, the value of the fish and aquatic organisms being protected is not.

“Are 1,000 plankton worth $1 million?” said Justice Souter. “I don’t know.”

Given that uncertainty, Souter added, the application of cost-benefit analysis would seem to unfairly favor industry and “basically eliminate the whole technology-driven point of the statute.”

More than 10 miles of cooling canals
have been constructed at the Turkey Point
power plant at Homestead, Florida to cool
the circulating water. (Photo by Penny
Zobel courtesy USGS)

The concern, said Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, is how to compare “things that aren’t comparable.”

All cost-benefit analyses are difficult – even “ones which people do in ordinary life,” Joseffer replied. “When I decide whether to buy a TV for this amount or a more expensive TV for a different amount, I don’t know exactly how in my head I quantify that, but I do.”

Chief Justice John Roberts rejected Joseffer’s hypothetical and also seemed skeptical of the government’s argument.

“If you told somebody that you were going to buy the best TV available nobody would think you meant that you were going to buy a very cheap TV because, considering the costs and benefits, that was the best one,” Roberts said. “They would think you are going to get the fanciest TV you could.”

Justice Anthony Kennedy said he assumed that best available technology meant “the most rigorous of standards” set by the Clean Water Act and questioned where it suggested cost considerations for the cooling water intake rules.

Joseffer responded that the EPA does not think the best available technology language is stricter than other standards, such as the Clean Water Act’s pollution discharge standards.

Those standards require cost-benefit analysis and call for elimination of discharges compared to the cooling water intake provision’s goal to minimize environmental impacts, he explained.

“There is no reason to think Congress would want greater protection for fish through intake structures than for people through the discharge of pollutants,” Joseffer said.

Justice Antonin Scalia agreed, saying it “seems ridiculous” to allow cost-benefit analysis for pollutant discharge standards “where human health is at stake, and yet to forbid it in this intake situation when you were just talking about the snail darter.”

Arguing for the environmentalists, Georgetown University law professor Richard Lazarus said the statute clearly does not give EPA authority to weigh costs against benefits for the intake rules.

But that interpretation would not lead to “the kind of absurd circumstances” the Bush administration and industry predict, said Lazarus, because the “plain meaning” of the Clean Water Act guards against the possibility that “a regulated facility would have to spend millions or hundreds of millions or billions of dollars to protect just a few fish.”

If a technology is too costly, he explained, it is essentially not be the best available technology, as Congress meant availability to mean both “technologically available and economically available.”

That reasoning baffled Justice Scalia.

“If I look in the real estate page of the “Washington Post” on Sunday and I look for the best house that is available, the best house that is available might cost $50 million,” Scalia said. “Now, that would be available to me. I couldn’t afford it, but it would be available. You wouldn’t say I can’t buy the house because for me it’s not economically available. I might say it’s not economically feasible, it’s not economically possible, but it’s not economically available? That’s weird.”

Lazarus responded that “it may be weird … but it is not anything that has ever been disputed in the interpretation” of the Clean Water Act.

Justice Samuel Alito also questioned Lazarus’ interpretation and wondered if the EPA could consider the impacts of increased electricity costs to consumers.

“If the effect of achieving a small gain in protecting fish is to increase electricity costs 10 times, is that something that cannot be taken into account?” Justice Alito asked.

The EPA can consider whether costs can be “reasonably borne by industry,” Lazarus replied, but cannot hold off on requiring installation of the best available technology because it thinks the benefits are not worth the costs.

Justice Stephen Breyer, a member of the court’s liberal wing, honed in on the intent of lawmakers who crafted the 1972 law and sought some middle ground that would allow the EPA to consider costs and benefits without a strict comparison.

“As I read it, it says: Of course you can’t avoid taking into account costs, but don’t do it too much,” Breyer said. “And, therefore, you would say: ‘Don’t apply one of these big formal things when you reach your final goal. There are other ways of getting there. Of course, see that it isn’t absurd.’”

For 30 years – prior to the 2004 rule – the agency “has had a way” to do that, Breyer added, as it has considered whether costs were “grossly disproportionate” and unreasonable to industry.

“Why not let sleeping dogs lie?” Breyer asked. “Let the agency take it into account the way it’s done it to prevent absurd results, but not try to do it so that it’s so refined you can’t even take account of what a fish is worth unless they happen to be one of the 1.2 percent that goes to market.”

The court is expected to rule on the case next spring.

By J.R. Pegg

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.

Everyone knew it was coming. McCain’s eyelids had been telegraphing it like Morse since the final degate began. The Ayers/Acorn one-two, Rev. Wright and Tony Rezko implicitly implied, the money shot for the McCain/Palin rally monkeys. Obama had been sticking his jaw out, waiting for it, and when McCain landed the punch Obama reacted as if McCain had delved into Canadian trade deals. McCain declined to follow up his assertion that “details needed to be known” by asking about any, and thousands of Palin fanboys gnashed their teeth in impotent frustration and turned off the debate, which is a shame, ‘cause there was some interesting stuff in the second half. So here’s a brief highlight reel [debates.org]:

McCain: Well, Americans have gotten to know Sarah Palin…

32% favorability. Yes, we have gotten to know her. [www.nytimes.com]

McCain: ….it’s time we had that bresh of freth air (sic) — breath of fresh air coming into our nation’s capital and sweep out the old-boy network and the cronyism that’s been so much a part of it that I’ve fought against for all these years

”I smell like mothballs.”

Schieffer: Do you (Obama) think she’s qualified to be president?

Obama: PASS

Obama: I think it’s very commendable the work she’s done on behalf of special needs. I agree with that, John. I do want to just point out that autism, for example, or other special needs will require some additional funding, if we’re going to get serious in terms of research…..And if we have an across-the-board spending freeze, we’re not going to be able to.

R U SERIUS? U R NOT SERIUS

McCain: …..we’ve sailed Navy ships around the world for 60 years with nuclear power plants on them. We can store and reprocess spent nuclear fuel, Senator Obama, no problem.

Okay, maybe a small problem. [www.bloomberg.com]

McCain: We can offshore drill now. We’ve got to do it now. We will reduce the cost of a barrel of oil because we show the world that we have a supply of our own.

…because of we don’t tear apart the sofa for loose change right now, we’ll never afford a new house.

McCain: …..if you don’t get — adopt the health care plan that Senator Obama mandates, he’s going to fine you. Now, Senator Obama, I’d like — still like to know what that fine is going to be, and I don’t think that Joe right now wants to pay a fine when he is seeing such difficult times in America’s economy.…..
…………….
Obama: I’m happy to talk to you, Joe, too, if you’re out there. Here’s your fine — zero. You won’t pay a fine, because…
MCCAIN: Zero?
OBAMA: Zero

There’s really nothing to add to this moment in writing. The look on McCain’s face is priceless, like he’d just been slapped with a mackerel. You can watch the video here. [www.talkingpointsmemo.com]

McCain: This really gets down to the fundamental difference in our philosophies. If you notice that in all of this proposal, Senator — government wants — Senator Obama wants government to do the job.

Senator Government. One of the greatest Freudian slips of all time.

McCain: I would consider anyone in their qualifications. I do not believe that someone who has supported Roe v. Wade that would be part of those qualifications. But I certainly would not impose any litmus test.

Considering anybody except for those who do X…..is a litmus test.

Obama: Senator McCain and I disagreed recently when the Supreme Court made it more difficult for a woman named Lilly Ledbetter to press her claim for pay discrimination……

Hello, ladies.

McCain: I don’t know how you align yourself with the extreme aspect of the pro- abortion movement in America…

Holy $#!T! There’s a pro-abortion movement? And an extreme one, at that? Isn’t that redundant? Not to mention, f#%k you too?

McCain: Just again, the example of the eloquence of Senator Obama. He’s health for the mother. You know, that’s been stretched by the pro-abortion movement in America to mean almost anything. That’s the extreme pro-abortion position, quote, “health.”

Air quotes??? That sound you hear is McCain’s polling among women going ker-splattttt.

All in all, John McCain was as energetic as he’s been in any of the debates, which has to be a step up, but he was rambling, unfocused, and angry (and hurting). If I didn’t know better, it looked like he split an eight-ball with W. in the limo. Obama, on the other hand, probably had the mellowest of his three debates, and given his goal of seeming a reassuring presence to those unfamiliar with him, he was the teacher parents trusted and kids admired. That’s 3 for 3.

Now, if only this all meant something.

– Michael Turner

NASHVILLE, Tennessee, October 8, 2008 (ENS) – Energy and environment issues formed a substantial part of last night’s presidential debate between Democratic hopeful Senator Barack Obama and Republican Senator John McCain. The second of three debates was an informal style Town Hall event held at Belmont University in Nashville, with veteran newscaster Tom Brokaw as moderator.

Obama said repeatedly that energy would be a top priority in his administration.

“We are going to have to deal with energy because we can’t keep on borrowing from the Chinese and sending money to Saudi Arabia. We are mortgaging our children’s future. We’ve got to have a different energy plan,” he said.

McCain also said repeatedly that the United States is too dependent on foreign sources of oil. “We’ve got to stop sending $700 billion a year to countries that don’t want us very – like us very much,” he said early in the debate.

“My friends,” he said once again, “some of this $700 billion ends up in the hands of terrorist organizations.”

McCain said “drilling offshore and nuclear power are two vital elements” of U.S. energy independence.

McCain’s energy policy depends heavily on nuclear power. “We can work on nuclear power plants. Build a whole bunch of them, create millions of new jobs,” he said when asked what would be his top priority as president.

Later in the debate McCain reduced his assessment of how many jobs the nuclear industry might created, saying, “Look, I was on Navy ships that had nuclear power plants. Nuclear power is safe, and it’s clean, and it creates hundreds of thousands of jobs.”

“We have to have all of the above, alternative fuels, wind, tide, solar, natural gas, clean coal technology,” the Republican said.

From left: Senator John McCain and Senator
Barack Obama after their debate in
Nashville, Tennessee (Photo by
Berna Rosario)

Democratic candidate Obama has called for an investment of $15 billion a year over 10 years toward energy independence. “Our goal should be, in 10 year’s time, we are free of dependence on Middle Eastern oil.”

“That would be priority number one,” he said, calling energy independence a national security issue “because countries like Russia and Venezuela and, you know, in some cases, countries like Iran, are benefiting from higher oil prices.”

In response to a question from a member of the public on what sacrifices Americans will have to make, Obama called on Americans to “save energy in our homes, in our buildings.”

Obama promised “incentives so that you can buy a fuel efficient car that’s made right here in the United States of America, not in Japan or South Korea.”

“I believe in the need for increased oil production,” Obama said. “We’re going to have to explore new ways to get more oil, and that includes offshore drilling. It includes telling the oil companies, that currently have 68 million acres that they’re not using, that either you use them or you lose them,”

“We’re going to have to develop clean coal technology and safe ways to store nuclear energy,” he said.

McCain dismissed Obama’s requirement that nuclear power be safe, saying, “Nuclear power. Senator Obama says that it has to be safe or disposable or something like that.”

“And I know that we can reprocess the spent nuclear fuel,” said McCain. “The Japanese, the British, the French do it. And we can do it, too. Senator Obama has opposed that.”

In fact, Japan transports the spent fuel from its nuclear reactors by ship to France and Britain for reprocessing.

Answering a question from the audience about how quickly the candidates would move to address environmental issues, like climate change and green jobs, McCain espoused environmental causes in a general way.

“We can move forward, and clean up our climate, and develop green technologies, and alternate – alternative energies for – for hybrid, for hydrogen, for battery-powered cars, so that we can clean up our environment and at the same time get our economy going by creating millions of jobs,” McCain said.

Obama said, “It is absolutely critical that we understand this is not just a challenge, it’s an opportunity, because if we create a new energy economy, we can create five million new jobs, easily, here in the United States.”

“It can be an engine that drives us into the future the same way the computer was the engine for economic growth over the last couple of decades,” said the Democrat.

Reminding the audience that his opponent voted against alternative energy 23 times, Obama said, “Sen. McCain talks a lot about drilling, and that’s important, but we have three percent of the world’s oil reserves and we use 25 percent of the world’s oil.”

“So what that means is that we can’t simply drill our way out of the problem. And we’re not going to be able to deal with the climate crisis if our only solution is to use more fossil fuels that create global warming,” Obama said.

Stung by the assertion that he has voted against the alternative energy solutions he now espouses, McCain countered, “It was an energy bill on the floor of the Senate loaded down with goodies, billions for the oil companies, and it was sponsored by Bush and Cheney.”

“You know who voted for it? You might never know. That one,” said McCain, referring to his opponent.

“You know who voted against it? Me.”

McCain grew more impatient and dismissive of Obama as the debate continued into areas of foreign policy, until by the end of the encounter, the Republican was ignoring his opponent.

After the debate had concluded and both candidates were free to walk around the hall talking to audience members, Senator Obama offered his hand to his opponent, but McCain looked away.

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.

TOLEDO, Ohio, August 26, 2008 (ENS) – At Oak Harbor, Ohio, 21 miles southeast of the city of Toledo, lies the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, where a hole the size of a football was discovered in the head of the nuclear reactor vessel in March 2002.

Today, a federal jury in Toledo convicted a former reactor coolant system engineer at the facility of lying to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission about the safety condition of that reactor vessel head.

The Davis-Besse nuclear power plant at Oak
Harbor, Ohio. (Photo courtesy NRC)

“Today, after hearing all the facts, a federal jury convicted Andrew Siemaszko for concealing the truth from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,” said Ronald Tenpas, assistant attorney general for the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division. “The effectiveness of the NRC’s regulation and the safe operation of the nation’s nuclear power plants depends on honest and forthright information.”

The evidence at trial showed that during the fall of 2001 Andrew Siemaszko falsely represented to the NRC that past inspections of the reactor vessel head at Davis-Besse were adequate to assure safe operation of the facility until spring of 2002 when the utility operator, FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, had scheduled a regular refueling shutdown.

During that refueling outage, workers discovered the hole in the head of the reactor vessel, the container where the nuclear reaction occurs.

Analysis showed the hole resulted from a leak of corrosive reactor coolant containing boric acid through a crack that had opened where control rod guide nozzles were welded to the lid of the reactor vessel.

Boric acid is dissolved in a plant’s reactor coolant water. Inspections revealed that there were deposits of boric acid on the reactor head that got worse over time and eventually blocked holes that should have been used for inspections.

Siemaszko’s false statements to the NRC were in response to a bulletin issued by the agency in August 2001 that warned of a cracking problem at similar plants and sought information about Davis-Besse.

This nozzle cracking problem had first been observed at similar U.S. plants in late 2000, and the NRC warned in the bulletin that it could lead to breaks where the nozzles penetrated the lid of the steel-walled reactor vessel.

Such a break could release pressurized reactor coolant water into the containment building. The NRC estimated that if Davis-Besse had operated for another two to 11 months, the damaged reactor vessel head could have failed, causing a serious loss of coolant accident. A near-meltdown had been narrowly averted.

The NRC bulletin warned that small boric acid deposits were a sign of nozzle cracking. In the bulletin, the federal agency required FirstEnergy Nuclear and other utilities to report on their plants’ susceptibility to cracking, the steps they had taken to detect it and their plans for addressing the problem in the future.

Because FirstEnergy Nuclear chose not to inspect the nozzles before December 31, 2001, it was also required to justify operation beyond that date.

Boric acid corrosion on the Davis-Besse reactor
vessel head (Photo courtesy NIRS)

In the months following the issuance of the bulletin, FirstEnergy Nuclear submitted to the NRC five letters that included details of past inspections.

The jury determined that they were based in part on false information that Siemaszko contributed about his own inspection of the reactor vessel head and information based on video records of inspections conducted by others.

Video evidence presented to the jury of the inspection performed by Siemaszko in 2000, showed that the camera used for inspections was physically blocked by boric acid deposits and that very few of the nozzles that were the subject of the NRC’s bulletin could be assessed for cracking.

At trial, the government proved that Siemaszko knew that he had given false reports and that he presented information orally to the NRC that emphasized false conclusions, including the statement that he was “at peace in his soul” regarding the 2000 inspection results.

Siemaszko was convicted of concealing the condition of Davis-Besse’s reactor vessel head and of concealing how poor past inspections of that head had been.

He also was convicted of using false writings in FirstEnergy Nuclear’s interactions with the NRC, including false statements about the extent of inspections done in 1996, 1998 and 2000.

After the cavity in the Davis-Besse reactor vessel head was discovered, FirstEnergy Nuclear disciplined a number of its employees. Siemaszko was fired and brought a whistleblower complaint against the company.

Andrew Siemaszko (Photo courtesy
Ohio Citizen Action)

According to a Department of Labor investigator who testified at the trial, the complaint was fully investigated and dismissed. The investigator testified that Siemaszko admitted during the whistleblower investigation that he lied to the NRC and was terminated for that reason.

Special agents of the NRC’s Office of Investigations and a senior reactor inspector from NRC’s Region III developed the case and referred it to the Department of Justice.

The investigation and prosecution were conducted jointly by the Justice Department’s Environmental Crimes Section and by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Ohio, as well as the NRC Office of Investigations.

Siemaszko’s co-defendant David Geisen was convicted on October 31, 2007, on similar charges. Another co-defendant, Rodney Cook, was acquitted. Sentencing in for Siemaszko has not yet been scheduled.

Siemaszko has supporters who do not believe that he is guilty as charged. The Union of Concerned Scientists and the advocacy group Ohio Citizen Action both say Siemaszko is innocent.

Ohio Citizen Action composed a letter for its followers to send to government officials that says, “The records of Mr. Siemaszko’s actions show that he was carrying out his job of cleaning the reactor head in good faith until management brought a halt to the work. By FirstEnergy’s own admission, the root cause of the problem began in the mid-1990s, several years before Mr. Siemaszko was even employed at the plant.”

FirstEnergy Nuclear is a subsidiary of FirstEnergy Corp, based in Akron, Ohio. In April 2005, the company was fined $5.45 million over the Davis-Besse reactor head incident, the largest single fine ever proposed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

The main violation was that the utility restarted and operated the Davis-Besse plant in May 2000 without fully characterizing and eliminating leakage from the reactor vessel head, which led to significant corrosion damage.

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.

WASHINGTON, DC, April 17, 2008 (ENS) – Diminished by drought, impounded by 11 hydroelectric dams, and the subject of a U.S. Supreme Court water battle between the states of North and South Carolina, the Catawba-Wateree River today was named the most endangered river in the United States.

The Catawba River begins its 300 mile run to the Atlantic Ocean high in the Blue Ridge mountains of western North Carolina, and flows through the Charlotte metropolitan area before reaching South Carolina, where its name changes to the Wateree River.

The Catawba River near its headwaters in
North Carolina. A real estate development
is planned for this stretch of the river.
(Photo courtesy River Club Lifestyle)

This river supplies drinking water to more than a million people along the way and supports the water needs of numerous coal and nuclear power plants. Duke Energy’s renewal of its federal license to manage the Catawba is set to expire this year.

“Water will be the oil of the 21st century,” said Rebecca Wodder, president of American Rivers, the conservation group that issues the annual ranking of the country’s most endangered rivers.

“Yet all across the country, water mismanagement is on full display as politicians resort to placing another straw in their rivers, or outright stealing water from their neighbors, instead of adopting water policies that will make our communities more resilient in the face of global warming,” said Wodder.

Those risks are only exacerbated by global warming, she said.

Each year since 1986, American Rivers has published a list of the 10 most endangered rivers in the country. To select the rivers to list, American Rivers solicits nominations from thousands of river groups, environmental organizations, outdoor clubs, local governments, and taxpayer watchdogs

The report highlights the rivers facing the most uncertain futures rather than those suffering from the worst chronic problems. The report presents alternatives to proposals that would damage rivers, identifies those who make the crucial decisions, and points out opportunities for the public to take action on behalf of each listed river.

Being named as one of America’s Most Endangered Rivers is not an end for the river, but rather a beginning, she said. With the listing comes a national spotlight and action from thousands of activists across the country. These 10 rivers have a chance to be reborn, and to serve as models for other rivers all across America.

“These 10 rivers are at a crossroads, and the choices made by local and national decision makers will determine not only the rivers’ future, but the future of America’s fresh water resources,” said Wodder. “Water is a precious resource, we must treat it as such; the future of our communities, our nation, and our planet depends on it.”

America’s Most Endangered Rivers in 2008 are:

* #1: Catawba-Wateree River in North Carolina and South Carolina

While the entire southeastern United States suffers the effects of drought, policy makers want to take more water from the Catawba-Wateree River, rather than focusing on 21st century policies like water conservation and smart development.

Without a major change in direction in public policy, the river that provides drinking water for millions of people, pumps tens of millions of dollars into local economies, and is directly responsible for thousands of jobs could be irreparably damaged; and the communities that depend on it will suffer.

American Rivers says lawmakers in the Carolinas are among the first to reach this ominous fork in the road, and the direction they choose to take will affect water policy in the Southeast for generations.
* #2: Rogue River in Oregon

One of America’s original Wild and Scenic rivers could soon have its wild character destroyed if a plan to log key Rogue River tributaries moves forward. The clearcuts would choke the river with sediment and harm the unique river experience that draws thousands of boaters and anglers each year.

The fate of the Rouge River lies in the hands of Congress. American Rivers says lawmakers should pass legislation to grant Wild and Scenic River protections to 98 miles of vital tributaries in the lower Rogue canyon and designate the unprotected roadless areas in the Rogue canyon as Wilderness Areas.
* #3: Poudre River in Colorado

Colorado’s only Wild and Scenic River could soon lose much of its remaining water thanks to a scheme proposed by some decision makers to unnecessarily divert billions of gallons of water away from the Cache la Poudre. Such action could cripple Fort Collins, which has christened the river as one of the town’s “economic engines.”

The proposed Northern Integrated Supply Project, NISP, would cost homeowners and taxpayers almost a billion dollars, and subject residents and future generations to the debt for 30 years.

The NISP/Glade project, a massive dam-and-reservoir project that would include the 177,000 acre-foot Glade Reservoir, is the largest engineering project proposed along Colorado’s Front Range in a quarter century.

If built, the project would divert about 35 percent of the water out of the Poudre River as it flows through Fort Collins, in addition to the 60 percent of water that is already diverted out of the Poudre. It would wipe out a scenic valley just north of Fort Collins and require the relocation of part of Highway 287 at an enormous cost to ratepayers.

These Poudre River advocates say the
NISP/Glade project is too expensive
and will create more problems than
it solves. (Photo courtesy
Save the Poudre)

“Because of the NISP/Glade project, Fort Collins has been saddled with a very dubious distinction,” said Gary Wockner of the Save The Poudre Coalition.

“Fort Collins and the region have been called the ‘Best Place to Live in America’ by Money Magazine and a ‘New American Dream Town’ by Outside Magazine. We can’t let the proposed Glade Reservoir drown our city’s reputation. We need to stop this project.”

“Instead of projects like NISP, we should implement proven and effective water-saving measures,” said Wockner. “We also need to work proactively with farmers to find flexible solutions for the benefit of the region – that’s the best solution to meeting our water needs, not further draining our rivers.”
* #4: St. Lawrence River in New York and Canada

Tens of millions of people in two countries depend on the St. Lawrence River. The health and vitality of this North American waterway is threatened by outdated management plans of the Moses-Saunders Dam that date back to the Eisenhower administration. These 50 year old policies continue to harm the river that supplies drinking water to large sections of the United States and Canada.

The Moses-Saunders Dam on the St.
Lawrence River (Photo courtesy
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service)

The Moses-Saunders Power Dam is jointly owned by the New York Power Authority and Ontario Power Generation and generates about two million kilowatts of electricity.

The management plan for the dam is up for revision. Research conducted by more than 180 scientists from both countries agree that the river’s vitality can be improved by implementing a plan known as B+.

The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and the New York State Department of State said in a joint statement March 28 that they are “deeply concerned” over the months-long refusal of the International Joint Commission, IJC, to work in good faith with New York State on the plan for Lake Ontario/St. Lawrence River water levels.

“It is our understanding, from several sources, that the IJC intends to go forward with an alternative, dubbed “Plan 2007,” which at best, is nearly identical to the ecologically destructive protocol that is currently in place, known as “Plan 1958 DD,” the New York State agencies warned.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, NOAA and the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service have all expressed support for Plan B+. Both the New York Power Authority and its Canadian counterpart also prefer Plan B+ because it would improve hydroelectric power production to a significant extent. The only U.S. federal agency to express opposition to Plan B+ is the St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation of the U.S. Department of ransportation.

The Province of Ontario is still reviewing its options, but Environment Canada has expressed support for Plan B+.
* #5: Minnesota River in Minnesota

The first major tributary to the Mississippi River could soon be robbed of much of its water, due to a plan that would build a coal power plant on the shores of Big Stone Lake.

Not only would the proposed Big Stone II project take more than six million gallons of water a day from the Minnesota River, but it would also emit greenhouse gases and mercury into the air.

American Rivers says the power plant would cripple the river that brings tens of millions of dollars into the regional economy and spell disaster for the wildlife that inhabits the Minnesota River.
* #6: St. Johns River in Florida

Florida’s longest river could soon be robbed of much of its water in an attempt to quench the unending thirst of development in the Sunshine State. The St. Johns River, one of only 14 American Heritage Rivers in the country, is an ecological wonderland that may be damaged or destroyed by water withdrawal.

Thriving economies in the region that depend on tourism and recreation dollars. Some of the fastest growing counties in America lie in the St. Johns’ watershed and the region’s population is expected to double to more than six million people by 2025.

The average Floridian uses 160 gallons of water a day; the average American uses only 100 gallons. American Rivers says conservation is the answer that will protect the St. Johns and allow Florida to continue to grow.

In addition, the amount of nitrogen and phosphorus in the lower St. Johns River exceeds the amount the river can receive and maintain its health, which in the past has led to harmful algal blooms. The St. Johns River Water Management District mounted a campaign April 1 designed to heighten awareness of river health issues, educate the public on how human behaviors impact the river and motivate positive behavioral changes.
* #7 Gila River in New Mexico and Arizona

New Mexico’s last free flowing river could soon see some of its water diverted. American Rivers is concerned that New Mexico’s Interstate Stream Commission is considering a possible multimillion dollar diversion project to take water out of the Gila for development and growth near Silver City.

Governor Bill Richardson said today he will consider proposing a law forbidding dams or diversion projects on the Gila River in southwestern New Mexico.

“While this designation is ominous,” said the governor, “I am hopeful that this year’s listing will result in a renewed effort to protect the Gila River.”

If enacted, the diversion project could deplete a desert oasis. “As the entire Southwest deals with issues of water scarcity, water managers deciding the fate of the Gila should know that the eyes of America are on them,” American Rivers said today.
* #8 Allagash Wilderness Waterway in Maine

One of the most important wild rivers in the entire country is being jeopardized by development pressures and a lack of political leadership, says American Rivers. The Allagash Wilderness Waterway, Maine’s only nationally designated Wild and Scenic River, is losing its protections.

A view of the Allagash Wilderness
Waterway (Photo courtesy
Allagash Canoe Trips)

The Allagash Wilderness Waterway was established by the Maine Legislature in 1966 to preserve, protect, and enhance the natural beauty, character, and habitat of a unique area.

The 92 mile long ribbon of lakes, ponds, rivers, and streams winds through the heart of northern Maine’s vast commercial forests.

A newly appointed advisory council is deciding what to do next on the Allagash. Conservation groups say the Council should advocate for legislative reaffirmation of the original mandate to enhance the “maximum wilderness character” of the Allagash Wilderness Waterway.

Conservationists say the plan should restrict motor vehicle access, reduce logging roads and bridges, preserve the native fishery, and designate areas for non-motorized winter recreation.
* #9 Pearl River in Louisiana and Mississippi

A development scheme masquerading as flood protection threatens the Pearl River and shows that the painful lessons of Hurricane Katrina still have not been learned, American Rivers says.

At risk are a thriving recreational and fishing industry and the source of natural flood protection to riverine communities.

The danger has been compounded by failed leadership at the Corps of Engineers, which has refused to look beyond the dangerous scheme and develop a comprehensive approach to flooding and environmental problems along the Pearl.

Developers and local politicians are pushing plans to dam and dredge the Pearl to create lakes and islands for commercial development. Also under consideration are large earthen levees, similar to those that failed in New Orleans. All told, almost 140 square miles of wetlands and bottomland hardwood forests would be dredged or drowned.
* #10 Niobrara River in Nebraska

One of Nebraska’s biggest tourist attractions, and one of the state’s most beautiful rivers, is slowly losing water and in danger of losing more.

A Wild and Scenic River that attracts tens of thousands of paddlers and outdoor enthusiasts to the nation’s heartland, the Niobrara could soon be stressed by increased irrigation.

In addition to supporting a booming tourist economy, the Niobrara supports irrigation of more than 600,000 acres. Additional irrigation applications are currently pending with Nebraska’s Department of Natural Resources. These additional irrigation applications threaten to upset that balance, damaging the Niobrara today and they will make surrounding communities even less resilient to the potential impacts of global warming.

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.

WASHINGTON, DC, March 5, 2008 (ENS) – “This conference will seem unbelievably outdated within a decade,” President George W. Bush today told participants at WIREC 2008, the third global ministerial-level conference on renewable energy, taking place at the Washington Convention Center. “People will marvel about how far technology has helped change our habits and change the world. And I hope you take great pride in being a part of this constructive change,” he said.

“Let me start first by telling you that America has got to change its habits,” said Bush. “We’ve got to get off oil. And the reason why is, first, oil is – dependency on oil presents a real challenge to our economy.”

“The dependency upon oil also puts us at the mercy of terrorists. If there’s tight supply and demand, all it requires is one terrorist disruption of oil and that price goes even higher,” he said. “That dependency presents a challenge to our national security.”

“And finally, our dependence on fossil fuels like oil presents a challenge to our environment. When we burn fossil fuels we release greenhouse gases. The concentration of greenhouse gases has increased substantially,” said Bush. “We recognize all three of these challenges, and we’re doing something about it.”

President George W. Bush addresses
WIREC 2008 (Photo courtesy
Earth Negotiations Bulletin)

The president explained the U.S. efforts on encourage development of biodiesel and ethanol, of solar and wind power, and of nuclear power. “We want our people to understand that this generation of nuclear power plants is safe. We want people to feel comfortable about the expansion of nuclear power,” he said.

Bush described the federal risk insurance program and loan guarantees for nuclear power plant developers. “Since we’ve started these programs, we’ve received six applications to build and operate new nuclear power plants in the United States,” he said. “The paradigm is beginning to shift. And we anticipate that another 13 applications will be submitted this year.”

“We’re also working with our friends overseas for the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership,” Bush said. “I believe developing nations ought to be encouraged to use nuclear power. I believe it’s in our interests, I believe it will help take pressure off the price of oil, and I know it’s going to help protect the environment.”

“And so we’re working with other nations, like Japan and France and Great Britain and Russia and China, to form this energy partnership, the purpose of which is to help developing nations secure cost-effective and proliferation-resistant nuclear power, and at the same time to conduct joint research on how to deal with the nuclear waste issue, through positive, productive reprocessing,” he said.

“The United States is serious about confronting climate change, and the strategies I just laid out for you are an integral part of dealing with climate change,” he said.

Bush told the conference audience that he supports an international agreement to limit the greenhouse gas emissions responsible for global warming, but it “must include commitments, solid commitments, by every major economy, and no country should get a free ride.”

At an official side event,
delegates consider how
to define sustainable
hydropower. (Photo
courtesy ENB)

The president announced no new initiatives today, but what was new in his speech was a strong verbal commitment to “deal with global climate change.”

On Tuesday, Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer and Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman told WIREC participants that their two agencies will invest up to $18.4 million, over three years, for 21 biomass research and development and demonstration projects.

Other countries have made major renewable energy pledges at WIREC. At the end of Tuesday, over 60 pledges had been submitted for the Washington International Action Program, a compilation of pledges from WIREC participants announcing domestic and international plans to accelerate the global uptake of renewable energy.

Australia has pledged that renewables will account for 20 percent of the electricity supply in 2020. And Australia has also pledged to implement a national Renewable Energy Target that includes a legislated annual target of 45,000 gigawatt-hours in 2020.

Denmark has pledged to reduce the use of fossil fuels by a minimum of 15 percent by 2025 and increase the share of renewable energy to at least 30 percent of energy consumption by the same year.

Italy pledges to establish a market-based green certificate mechanism to promote renewable energies and offer a 55 percent percent tax deduction over three years for solar heating and a tax credit on heating from geothermal sources and biomass used for district heating.

Japan has pledged to set a renewable energy introduction target accounting for about three percent of the total primary energy supply by 2010.

Jordan has pledged to increase use of renewable energy sources to account for 10 percent of its energy needs by 2020.

WIREC 2008 participants in the
plenary hall (Photo courtesy ENB)

New Zealand pledges that 90 percent of the country’s electricity will come from renewables by 2025.

Norway has pledged to attain carbon neutrality by 2050.

Spain pledges that at least 12 percent of energy consumed in Spain must come from renewable sources by 2010.

Tanzania and Kenya each have pledged to develop sustainable biofuels industries.

The Netherlands pledges to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent in 2020 and to increase share of renewable energy to 20 percent by that same year. And the Dutch government says it aims to buy 100 percent sustainable products in 2010.

The Washington International Renewable Energy Conference, WIREC 2008, opened on March 4 and will continue through March 6. Close to 3,000 participants are registered for the ministerial meeting and 4,000 other participants are in attendance.

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.

WASHINGTON, DC, February 27, 2008 (ENS) – The renewable energy industry is rising from obscurity into the mainstream of the energy sector, the latest global assessment reveals, although public perception of the industry has not kept pace with the reality.

The renewable energy sector now accounts for 2.4 million jobs globally, and has doubled electric generating capacity since 2004, to 240 gigawatts, according to the Renewables 2007 Global Status Report released today.

The status report was prepared by REN21, formally known as the Renewable Energy Network for the 21st Century, a global policy network which is headquartered in Paris, France – in collaboration with the Washington, DC-based research organization Worldwatch Institute, which works on energy, resource, and environmental issues.

New renewable energy generated as much electric power worldwide in 2006 as one-quarter of the world’s nuclear power plants, the report states.

“So much has happened in the renewable energy sector during the past five years that the perceptions of some politicians and energy-sector analysts lag far behind the reality of where the renewables industry is today,” says REN21 Chairman Mohamed El-Ashry, who formerly headed the Global Environment Facility, an international funding agency.

Bill Ball, president of the Stellar
Sun Shop in Little Rock, Arkansas,
catches some rays atop PV
shingles on the roof of his shop.
(Photo courtesy Stellar Sun Shop)

The fastest growing energy technology in the world is grid-connected solar photovoltaics, PV, with 50 percent annual increases in cumulative installed capacity in both 2006 and 2007, to an estimated 7.7 gigawatts.

This translates into 1.5 million homes with rooftop solar cells feeding into the grid worldwide. Another estimated 2.7 gigawatts of stand-alone systems brings global solar photovoltaic capacity to over 10 gigawatts.

Biofuels production has zoomed ahead since 2005, the report shows, up 43 percent to an estimated 53 billion liters of ethanol and biodiesel produced in 2007.

Ethanol production in 2007 represented about four percent of the 1,300 billion liters of gasoline consumed globally, and annual biodiesel production increased by more than 50 percent in 2006.

Worldwatch President Chris Flavin says the report shows that renewable energy is poised to make a contribution to meeting energy needs and reducing the growth in carbon dioxide emissions in the years immediately ahead.

“The science is telling us we need to substantially reduce emissions now, but this will only happen with even stronger policies to accelerate the growth of clean energy,” Flavin says.

Investment reached an estimated $71 billion in new renewable power, fuel, and heat production assets worldwide in 2007, the status report shows.

Wind farm on the southwest coast of Denmark (Photo courtesy Sandia National Lab)

Of the $71 billion – 47 percent was invested in wind power and 30 percent was for solar PV. Investment in large hydropower represented an additional $15 to 20 billion.

El-Ashry emphasizes that many of the trends described in the Renewables 2007 Global Status Report are the result of leadership and actions launched since the major renewable energy conference held in Bonn, Germany in 2004.

“This leadership has never been more important, as renewable energy has now reached the top of the international policy agenda under the United Nations and the G8,” said El-Ashry.

Policy targets for renewable energy exist in at least 66 countries worldwide, including all 27 European Union countries, 29 U.S. states and the District of Columbia, and nine Canadian provinces.

Most targets are for shares of electricity production, primary energy, and/or final energy by a future year. Most targets aim for the 2010-2012 timeframe, although an increasing number of targets aim for 2020.

There is now an EU-wide target of 20 percent of final energy by 2020, and a Chinese target of 15 percent of primary energy by 2020. In addition to China, several other developing countries adopted or upgraded targets during 2006-2007.

In addition, targets for biofuels as future shares of transport energy now exist in several countries, including an EU-wide target of 10 percent by 2020.

To compile these and many other facts and figures, researcher Dr. Eric Martinot of Worldwatch Institute and Tsinghua University, led an international team of 140 researchers and contributors from both developed and developing countries.

They calculate that developing countries as a group have more than 40 percent of the total existing renewable power capacity, more than 70 percent of existing solar hot water capacity, and 45 percent of biofuel production.

Martinot says renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, geothermal, and small-scale hydropower offer countries the means to improve their energy security and spur economic development. www.ren21.net www.worldwatch.org

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.

LOS ALAMOS, New Mexico, February 23, 2008 (ENS) – Scientists at the Los Alamos National Laboratory have developed a low-risk, transformational concept, called Green Freedom™, for large-scale production of carbon neutral, sulfur free fuels and organic chemicals from air and water.

Currently, the principal market for the Green Freedom production concept is fuel for vehicles and aircraft.

At the core of the technology is a new process for extracting carbon dioxide, CO2, from the atmosphere and making it available for fuel production using a new form of electrochemical separation.

By integrating this electrochemical process with existing technology, researchers have developed a new, practical approach to producing fuels and organic chemicals that permits continued use of existing industrial and transportation infrastructure.

Even the production of this fuel would be driven by carbon neutral power.

“Our concept enhances U.S. energy and material security by reducing dependence on imported oil,” said F. Jeffrey Martin of the Laboratory’s Decisions Applications Division, principal investigator on the project.

“Initial system and economic analyses indicate that the prices of Green Freedom commodities would be either comparable to the current market or competitive with those of other carbon-neutral, alternative technologies currently being considered,” he said.

Martin presented the concept at the Alternative Energy NOW conference in Lake Buena Vista, Florida, on Wednesday.

In addition to the new electrochemical separation process, the Green Freedom system can use existing cooling towers, such as those of nuclear power plants, with carbon-capture equipment that eliminates the need for additional structures to process large volumes of air.

The primary environmental impact of the production facility is limited to the footprint of the plant. It uses non-hazardous materials for its feed and operation and has a small waste stream volume.

In addition, unlike large-scale biofuel concepts, the Green Freedom system does not add pressure to agricultural capacity or use large tracts of land or farming resources for production.

The concept’s viability has been reviewed and verified by both industrial and semi-independent Los Alamos National Laboratory technical reviews.

The next phase will demonstrate the new electrochemical process to prove the ability of the system to both capture carbon dioxide and pull it back out of solution. An industrial partnership consortium will be formed to commercialize the Green Freedom concept.

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.

RED WING, Minnesota, February 4, 2008 (ENS) – Ron Johnson is tribal council president of the Prairie Island Indian Community, a tribe that lives just 600 yards from 24 large containment units of highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel.

Johnson and his tribe are some of the 169 million Americans living within 75 miles of temporary nuclear waste storage sites in 39 states, and this tribe lives closer to the hot waste than most.

They are urging voters to consider the candidates’ positions on solving the nation’s nuclear waste disposal problem before they cast their ballots on Super Tuesday.

“Developing a safe, permanent storage facility for spent nuclear fuel is critical to the health and welfare of the millions of Americans who currently live near temporary storage sites,” said Johnson. “The federal government must fulfill its obligation to the American people and solve this problem.”

High-level, radioactive nuclear waste from the nation’s nuclear power plants is currently accumulating at temporary storage sites in 18 of the 24 states holding primaries or caucuses on Tuesday.

A number of presidential candidates have voiced their opposition to the proposed national nuclear waste repository at Nevada’s Yucca Mountain, but there is no alternate location prepared to solve the nation’s nuclear waste problem.

The Prairie Island Mdewankanton Dakota Reservation is located in southeastern Minnesota along the banks of the Mississippi River, about 50 miles from the Twin Cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul.

Xcel’s Prairie Island nuclear power
plant (Photo courtesy NRC [www.nrc.gov])

It is adjacent to the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant owned by Xcel Energy Inc. Twin nuclear reactors and two dozen large cement nuclear waste storage casks sit just 600 yards from Prairie Island tribal homes. As many as 35 additional casks will be added in the coming years, the tribe has been told.

The Vermilion and Mississippi Rivers converge at the island and the nuclear power plant and storage casks sit directly on a low-lying Mississippi River floodplain. Like all areas with similar geographical features; it is subject to flooding.

The only evacuation route off the Prairie Island reservation is frequently blocked by passing trains. The tribe has been fighting to have the nuclear waste removed since 1994 when the state of Minnesota first allowed Xcel Energy to store the waste near the Prairie Island reservation.

Prairie Island tribal elder Chris Leith, also known as Brave Thunderhorse, recalls “Over the years we have seen our tribal members become ill with cancer and other unexplained sicknesses, and now we can’t even use the plants we once used for healing and medicines.”

Twenty-five years after Congress passed the National Nuclear Waste Storage Act and mandated the establishment of an underground repository, the future of the nation’s nuclear waste disposal program remains in doubt. To date, more than $28 billion has been contributed by American ratepayers to the national Nuclear Waste Fund without result.

“Leaving the nation’s nuclear waste in temporary locations near communities like ours is not an acceptable answer nor is it good leadership,” said Johnson. “This is a critical issue that the country’s next president must deal with – we can’t bury our heads in the sand, we need leadership.”

“Until or unless the federal government solves its nuclear waste problem, it is simply irresponsible to allow the construction of new nuclear power plants anywhere in the United States,” Johnson said.

States currently housing nuclear waste are: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin.

View This Story On Eco-mmunity Map.

WASHINGTON, DC, January 3, 2008 (ENS) – Nine citizens’ groups today petitioned the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NRC, to suspend all license renewals for the country’s aging nuclear power plants in view of a federal audit showing that NRC staff often did not verify the authenticity of technical safety information submitted by nuclear power plant operators.

Riverkeeper, Pilgrim Watch and the New England Coalition have joined with a coalition of six environmental and citizen’s groups known as Stop the Relicensing of Oyster Creek, STROC, in petitioning the federal agency responsible for oversight of U.S. civilian nuclear facilities.

The petition is presented in response to the NRC Office of Inspector General’s audit of the agency’s license renewal program dated September 6, 2007.

During the audit, inspectors found that in 76 percent of the audited plant renewals, NRC staff did not check the authenticity of technical safety information offered by nuclear power plant operators.

“Although expected to, audit team members do not consistently review or independently verify licensee supplied operating experience information because program managers have not established requirements and controls to standardize the conduct and depth of such reviews,” the Office of Inspector General, OIG, states.

Ginna nuclear power plant near
Rochester, New York (Photos
courtesy Nuclear Regulatory
Commission)

Inspectors determined that NRC staff reviewers routinely copied whole sections of the renewal application text into their own safety reviews instead of writing their own evaluations.

At the Turkey Point nuclear plant in Florida, and also at the Ginna nuclear plant in upstate New York, the inspectors found that NRC staff had copied 100 percent of the safety review data provided by the nuclear operators into their own reports.

“The lack of precision in differentiating quoted and unquoted text makes it difficult for the reader to distinguish between the licensee-provided data and NRC staff’s independent assessment methodology and conclusion. A reader could conclude that they were reading NRC’s independent analysis and conclusions when, in fact, it was the licensee’s conclusions,” the OIG report states.

In addition, the Inspector General determined that the NRC has no procedures in place to check whether the safety reviews are done properly or not.

Nevertheless, Turkey Point received its license renewal in July 2002, while Ginna was issued a renewed license in May 2004.

“License renewal program managers have not established requirements or controls to standardize the conduct of independent verifications and depth of probes of plant-specific operating experience during audit reviews of licensee applications,” the IOG audit states.

STROC, a coalition of six environmental and citizen groups, is trying to prevent the 20 year license extension for the Oyster Creek nuclear power plant.

Oyster Creek nuclear power plant
in New Jersey

Located in Ocean County, New Jersey, Oyster Creek began operating in 1969 as the first large-scale commercial nuclear power plant in the United States. Its 40 year operating license expires on April 4, 2009.

AmerGen Energy LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Exelon Corporation, is seeking to relicense Oyster Creek for another 20 years.

But investigators from the Office of Inspector General determined that over 70 percent of Oyster Creek’s safety evaluation was “unsubstantiated” by NRC staff.

This year STROC became the only group in the country to win a hearing before the Atomic Safety Licensing Board to present its challenge to the relicensing of Oyster Creek.

The three-judge panel ruled on the challenge to Oyster Creek’s license renewal on December 20, 2007. Despite one of the judges finding that Exelon has not fully met the requirements to show it complied with the minimum safety standards, the panel decided to allow the relicense procedure to proceed. A final NRC decision is expected January 22, 2008.

The attorney representing STROC, Richard Webster of the Eastern Environmental Law Center, said, “The OIG report confirms that the deficiencies we found throughout the hearing process for Oyster Creek were only the tip of the iceberg. The NRC is illegally allowing licensees to write their own safety evaluations. So far, the relicensing process has been a conveyor belt to a rubber stamp, not a proper safety review.”

Indian Point nuclear power
plant on the Hudson River at
Buchanan, New York

Across the Hudson River, Entergy Nuclear Northeast submitted its application for a 20 year license extension of the Indian Point nuclear power plant. Riverkeeper and the State of New York have petitioned to intervene in the licensing proceedings.

“The OIG report makes it clear that the current NRC license renewal process is a failure and must be completely re-evaluated before another plant is relicensed,” states Phillip Musegaas, Riverkeeper staff attorney. “The Indian Point license renewal process has just gotten underway. The 20 million people who live in the shadow of Indian Point deserve a federal agency that does more than cut and paste with their health and safety.”

STROC’s six member groups are the New Jersey Environmental Federation, Nuclear Information and Resource Service, New Jersey Sierra Club, New Jersey Public Interest Research Group, Jersey Shore Nuclear Watch, and Grandmothers, Mothers, and More for Energy Safety.

The petitioners are asking that the NRC redo the safety reviews for pending license renewals, as “the reviews done so far are obviously inadequate.”

View This Story On Eco-mmunity Map.