Worcester officials cite city parks to defend continued pollution of Blackstone River

I was trying to find a short, pithy way of describing the gist of an article that appeared in today’s Worcester (Mass.) Telegram & Gazette.

Here’s the story.

The Blackstone River has its source in Worcester and flows through Rhode Island into Narragansett Bay. Since colonial times, residents and businesses have regarded it as their personal sewage system. The passage of the Clean Water act made that illegal, but it didn’t put a stop to it.

Environmental agencies and organizations have worked hard to clean up the river, and a lot of progress has been made. One of the major problems that still exists is Worcester’s wastewater treatment system. The federal Environmental Protection Agency has found that the plant is still discharging nacceptable amounts of sewage of chemicals – especially nutrients – into the river, hampering cleanup efforts downstream.

In 2008, the EPA issued strict new guidelines and odered the city to make improvements t meet those guidelines. It’s an expensive venture – about $200 million – and an increase in sewage fees amounting to $225 per year per household. Worcester officials have been fighting it every step of the way.

The city is asking for a modification to the guidelines. Environmental groups oppose modifying them, saying the city has been dragging its feet for long enough. The state Department of Environmental Protection recently came down on the side of the city, asking the federal EPA to ease upand compromise. It’s no accident the Lt. Gov. is from Worcester.

So why should Worcester get a pass on adding pollutants to the river? According to the city manager, it’s because the city has a lot of parks and open space, representing a commitment to conservation and the environment.  The connection is a fuzzy one.

And to be sure, the city has a lot fewer trees than it used to, ever since it was discovered that it was playing host to an infestation of the Asian Long-Horned beetle. Thousands of trees were cut down, denuding most of the city.

Slick media campaign hides the dark side of Northern Pass

The campaign to approve the billion-dollar plan to bring hydroelectric power from Canada to New England is in full swing. The home page for the project features pictures of all the things we like about New Hampshire, things like pristine lakes and woods. What it doesn’t show are the 140 miles of transmission lines criss-crossing the White Mountains, with 135-foot high steel towers poking up through the trees every few hundred feet.

The information, so-called, talks about how the line will bring “much-needed” energy to the region. The fact is, there is no serious need for additional energy in that area. Much of what will be imported will be sold elsewhere. But just to make sure they have a ready market, the developers of the project, Public Service of New Hampshire and their affiliates also want a 40-year no-bid contract with the state.

They’re also looking for waivers from several other regulations that they would normally have to comply with.

Despite its name, PSNH is a private company, not a public utility, yet it wants to use eminent domain as a way to force reluctant property owners to give up their land to make way for the transmission lines. They’re also looking for changes in state law to make power drawn from the large-scale hydroelectric plant in Quebec as a “renewable resource” – disregarding the environmental damage that project has caused, and, not coincidentally, making them eligible for millions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies.

The plan is opposed by other energy suppliers as being patently unfair, the tourism industry which fears the effect of a blighted landscape on its industry, and environmental organizations. Their voices are being drowned out by the all-out media blitz by PSNH.

Approval for the project is still some months away, but so confident is PSNH of government approval that they have begun buying up property along the way. And there’s a shroud of secrecy around these purchases – with property owners who have sold land not being allowed to discuss the deals publicly.

Does it feel as though the fix is in?                

US media AWOL as Perry censors inconvenient truth

I’m not sure which is more disturbing – the fact that Texas officials in Gov. Rick Perry’s administration purged all mention of climate change on a 200-page environmental report commissioned by the state, or the fact that it has gone nearly unreported by the U.S. media.

In a nearly unprecedented move, the scientists who prepared the report have disowned it, demanding that their names be taken off the document. Once Perry’s political hacks got done with it, they wanted nothing to do with it.

“To me it is simply a question of maintaining scientific credibility,” said Jim Lester, a co-author of the report and vice president of the Houston Advanced Research Centre, in an article in The Guardian.

The report details the risks from rising sea levels, increased droughts, and more severe weather, much of which can be attributed to global climate change.

In the kind of ignorance reminiscent of the George W. Bush administration, Perry refuses to accept evolution, climate change, and apparently anything else science-related. And so it shouldn’t be too surprising that when this report was submitted to the Texas Commissionion on Environmental Quality, they didn’t like what they read.

The chairman of the commission, Bryan Shaw, a Perry appointee, is fond of calling climate change a hoax. They are not the least embarrassed by the episode, and justify it on political grounds.

Andrea Morrow, a spokeswoman for the agency, said the report was “inconsistent with current agency policy.”

And it wasn’t just a matter of expunging a few words, they did away with any data that didn’t support their policy – for instance the fact that sea levels at Galveston Bay are rising five times faster than the previous average as taken out completely.

But here’s another puzzle. The story has been reported in detail both by the French news service AFP and by the UK paper The Guardian, but not the major U.S. media.

Rick Perry is also running for president. Every statement, every nuance of body language is dissected by the U.S. political media. Why would they ignore something like this? Even he governor’s wife receives more coverage than this.

Shouldn’t people know what kind of governance we can expect if someone like this elected? Didn’t we learn anything from the dark ages of GW Bush?

PSNH and its dirty coal-burning plant

For years, a coal-burning power plant in Bow, NH, has been destroying the aquatic life of the Merrimack River, and the plant’s owners want to continue to do so unhindered. They take exception to a proposal from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that they upgrade their cooling system.

According to a report by the EPA, the current system  - which dates back to the days of unfettered pollution - heats up the habitat around the plant and traps fish in its system.

“We know that the fish populations have changed dramatically,” said EPA spokesman David Deegan in an article in Friday’s Concord Monitor. “A lot of the changes we see are fish that want warmer water.”

The owners, Public Service of New Hampshire, are the same group that wants to cut a gash through the White Mountains to bring electricity south from Canada – not for New Hampshire consumers, but to sell elsewhere. The name is nothing short of misleading -  they are not a public entity, but a private corporation, and the only service they’re interested in, is to their shareholders.

Which brings us back to the coal plant – the upgrade is going to cost a lot of money. Thus far, the company has been lucky to keep operating the way it has. They should have been ordered to do this years ago – but during the Bush administration the EPA was ordered not enforce regulations, and so they were able to operate without any interference.

Now that the EPA seems to have woken up from its Rip Van Winkle siesta, PSNH is crying foul.

“I’m not exaggerating when I’m saying we received very little in reaction and communication to the material we were very frequently providing to the EPA,” said PSNH spokesman Martin Murray.

He makes it sound as if they were just waiting for the go-ahead on this. Nothing was stopping them from upgrading their system. What’s the problem now?

This doesn’t even address the need to put an end to coal-burning plants. None other than multi-millionaire and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg – not exactly a ranting, raving radical – has seen the light, and is willing to put his money where his mouth is with a sizeable grant to the Sierra Club to help in its effort to put an end to coal-burning plants.

Your Government At Work

For some reason I found myself thinking about different news items I’ve come across recently.

Tim DeChristopher is a Utah environmentalist and former wilderness guide. In 2008, the government was auctioning off some oil and gas leases near two national parks. DeChristopher signed up and drove up the bids, winning several of the leases. The problem was he didn’t have any money.

That really upset the applecart. His prank earned him two years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

Compare this with the BP oil spill last year that killed 11 workers, destroyed the gulf coast economy, and ravaged the environment. BP’s chairman of the board was invited to lunch at the White House, and Republicans apologized to CEO Tony Hayworth for inconveniencing him when he was asked to testify before a Senate committee. The Justice Department is still considering criminal charges. BP is back to drilling in the Gulf.

The Vermont Yankee power plant has been leaking tritium for over a year now, and some of it has just been found in the Connecticut River. Strontium, much more dangerous than tritium, has also been found in the soil at the plant, and in fish in the river. A few years ago, one wall of a cooling tower collapsed – not because of an earthquake, tornado, or hurricane, but because it was badly built. That was the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s conclusion.

Given all the problems it has had, Vermont wants the plant shut down when its license expires in March. The owners are suing the state government, saying it has no right to shut them down, and the NRC is helping them prepare their case.

A year or so ago, fully armed federal agents working for the Dept. of Agriculture raided a gourmet cheese shop and yanked cheeses off the shelf. Why? Because some of the specialty cheeses were allegedly made with raw milk. Agents also raided a family farm and confiscated a young girl’s computer because the farm reportedly allowed people to buy raw milk.

Remember last year’s salmonella outbreak caused by eggs from huge factory farms where millions of chickens are kept in unsanitary conditions? Several hundred people got sick, and possibly some died. The outbreak was first detected in May, but the Center for Disease Control didn’t issue a recall until August. And even though the offending farms were known and identified, no action was taken against the company that owns them. They’re still cranking out eggs the same way they always have.

Shell Reports Another Oil Spill in the North Sea

Shell Oil Co. is reporting an oil leak at one of its drilling rigs in the North Sea. The company will not disclose the amount of the spill, but says it is now under control. This is not the first time.

Documents that were made public recently showed the company experienced nearly one oil spill a week during  a two-year period in 2009-2010.

This most recent spill couldn’t come a worse time.

The company has been touting improved safety measures and awaiting EPA approval of those measures so that it can go ahead with its plan for drilling in the Arctic. Oil interests have been pressuring the Obama administration to speed things along, on their assurances that nothing can go wrong.

It is puzzling why the administration has made an about-face on its offshore oil-drilling policy. After promising that no new drilling would take place until it could be done safely, the president has taken a full speed ahead approach just a year after the BP Gulf oil spill.

It should be noted that all these rigs were built with the same sort of assurances of safety that they’re giving now. Why should anyone believe them?

Entergy tries to pull another fast one in Vt. Yankee flap

The owners of the troubled Vermont Yankee nuclear plant are trying to pull another fast one – this time to avoid paying the cost of closing down the plant – much to the embarrassment of their good friends at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

The Brattleboro Reformer today reported that Entergy Corp., owners of the 40-year-old plant in Vernon, Vt., have sent a letter to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission saying that now that the commission has extended the plant’s license for another 20 years, there’s no need to keep the millions of dollars in a decommissioning account as required by the NRC.

The company has notified that it’ll take the money out, and begin re-building the fund over the next 20 years.

The company is acting as though it’s a done deal.

But wait. The state of Vermont has not approved the license, and it is increasingly unlikely that it will. The whole matter comes before a federal judge beginning next month.

The NRC’s response is that it is by no means certain that the plant will be able to operate after it’s current expiration date of March 2012. In addition to the lawsuit, the NRC cites several other reviews that are being conducted, any of which could have an impact on the plant’s future.

Whether or not the company has the funds to cover the cost of closing the plant has been the source of some controversy. Over the past year, the plant has been put up for sale, attempted to enter into a merger, and tried to form  new company bringing together three nucear plants that it operates in the northeast,

None of these succeeded, and in particular the plan to form a new subsidiary to operate the northeast nuclear plants was shot down by a New York regulatory agency because they were not convinced the new subsidiary would be able to cover the cost of decommissioning the plants. They saw it as a ploy for Entergy to get out from under the obligation.

Conn. Environmental Commissioner Defends Haddam Sweetheart De

The man supposedly in charge of protecting the Connecticut’s environment has finally broken his silence on a land swap in which a significant parcel of conservation land was given to a group of developers.

Commissioner Daniel Esty spoke to a group of disgruntled Haddam residents demanding to know why he approved the controversial land swap deal. Esty had remained silent throughout the discussion about the deal, and decided to answer questions only after it was a done deal.

At issue was a 17-acre parcel along the Connecticut River which was purchased by the state Dept. of Environmental Protection for $1.3 million in 2003 with funds meant to preserve important parcels of conservation land. A group of developers who own a banquet facility next door decided it would boost businesss if they could build a small inn or some other attractive business there.

They offered to swap a piece of land they owned elsewhere in town for the land next door. This was 87 acres of land that these business bozos had bought two years ago for $400,000 for a housing development that went bust. No one was willing to buy it.

Esty claims it’s a good deal - 87 acres for 17 acres – but look at the relative values.

Esty told the group there was no legal restriction to selling it (giving it away would be more accurate) to a private developer. He also defended the swap on the basis of the amount of land the state would acquire.

“The prospect of getting five times as much land was attractive,” Esty is reported to have told the group. Not a word about the importance of preserving important habitat along the river. No consideration for the ecological or environmental value of the land. Only the acreage matters, and the business interests of a few developers.

In Connecticut the fox is in charge of the henhouse.            

Is BOEMRE positioning itself to harass offshore wind farms?

At first glance it seems like a good idea – regulating worker safety on offshore renewable energy projects.

“We are committed to ensuring that offshore renewable energy development is conducted safely,” said Bureau of Ocean Energy and Management, Regulation and Enforcement director Michael Bronwich, according to a story by UPI.http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Energy-Resources/2011/08/02/BOEMRE-reviews-safety-of-offshore-energy/UPI-74091312283414/?spt=hs&or=er He was announcing a study on the issue that will be ready a year from now. No sense rushing into things.

It sounds good. It also sounds like something OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) should be doing. It also adresses only “renewable energy” projects, leaving out things like oil rigs.

A month before the Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded last year, the agency heard complaints about safety issues on the rig. When they asked BP about it, they were assured everything was fine, and so they left it at that. A month later 11 workers were dead and the biggest oil spill in history was under way.

The agency went on to help BP minimize the extent of the spill and the extent of the environmental damage. At that time they were know as the Mining and Minerals Service, but when their cozy relationship with the oil industry was exposed, they decided it was time for a name change.

To go back to this new initiative.

 Agencies and regulations already exist for worker safety. The oil industry has made it abundantly clear that they view alternative energies as their mortal enemy. Pardon me for being cynical, but it sure feels like they’re prodding BOEMRE to make trouble for these emerging sources of energy.

Oil Companies Bind & Gag U.S. Scientist over Arctic Oil Drilling

Figuratively speaking, of course.

But the fact is that for the past several months the U.S. Interior Department’s Inspector General has been investigating wildlife biologist Charles Monnett for reasons they have yet to reveal. Then last month, he was abruptly suspended and ordered not to speak to the press or his colleagues.

Could he be connected to some terrorist cell, bent on destruction?

It doesn’t seem likely. For one thing the government is always happy to parade suspected terrorists out to the news media.

So what could be so serious that he’s been suspended and no one can talk about why. Lucky for us, his co-workers and the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) aren’t afraid to talk. They say Monnett’s being harassed by the government because he’s making life difficult for the oil companies that want to drill in the Arctic.

Remember all those pictures of distressed polar bears swimming around looking for ice floes to rest on? It generated enough public pressure to get the polar bear declared a threatened species. It Monnett who first noticed several drowned polar bears while he was working on a research project about wales. He and a colleague wrote a short paper speculating that the melting polar ice cap and resulting open water was making it more difficult for polar bears.

PEER says that the oil industry has been lobbying hard to get the permitting process expedited.

Alaska Sen. Mark Begich is clearly on their Christmas gift list. In April, flanked by several oil company executives, he announced that he was filing a bill to create a permitting “coordinator” to do away with pesky oversight by agencies like the Interior Department that gave the oil industry “heartburn.”

Monnett’s story has been reported in papers like the UK’s Guardian, but is almost completely absent from the American media.

I've provided links if you want to read more.

Greed Trumps Conservation in Connecticut

Connecticut Gov. Daniel P. Malloy has signed into law a bill that paves the way for swapping an ecologically-significant state-owned wildlife sanctuary along the Connecticut River for a developer’s unwanted and relatively worthless parcel elsewhere in the state.

Beyond the loss of an important habitat, Gov. Mallory’s thoughtless acceptance of the claim that a developer’s desire to enhance his business interests outweighs the broader but less monetarily quantifiable need to preserve an ecologically important parcel of land, puts all conservation efforts in jeopardy.

The parcel in question is a 17 acre wildlife refuge along the Connecticut River in Haddam, Conn., purchased – with taxpayer money – for $1.3 million in 2003 by the state under a program meant to preserve open space. That would have seemed to ensure that the land would have remained undeveloped. Not so!

The land sits next door to the Riverhouse banquet facility owned by a group of developers who believe a small inn or something similar would help their business. They just happen to have a parcel of land in another part of town which they bought as part of a previously failed business venture. They paid about $400,000 two years ago for the property. They have been unable to sell it or do anything with it since then.

Then they got the bright idea that they could unload it on the state for the far more desirable property next to their restaurant. They have the backing of the local business community and at least one powerful state legislator. The governor apparently agreed with them.

There may be a few bumps along the way before the deal is done. For one, independent appraisers need to verify that the swap is a fair deal. At first glance it wouldn't seem so, given the difference in value, but given Connecticut’s well-deserved reputation for political corruption and its abysmal record on environmental issues, I’m not holding out much hope.

Exxon’s latest oil spill just more of the same

From those wonderful folks at Exxon (remember the Exxon Valdez?) we have more of the same, but this time they’ve chosen to befoul the Yellowstone River with 42,000 gallons of crude oil. It may not be on quite the same scale as the Alaska disaster, but it reflects that nothing has changed in the 22 years since the Alaskan disaster.

Records indicate that just a few months ago, the company was warned by the Dept. of Transportation that the pipeline that ruptured was not buried deep enough, that it had suffered some corrosion damage, that maps showing the location of shut-off valves were not accurate, and that their reponse plans were completely inadequate.

Not to worry, was the company response. They’ll take care of it first chance they get. In the meantime, they’ll continue operating because nothing had happened yet.  Until last Friday night, that is, when the rupture occurred.

And their response? Send out a relative handful of people in hazmat suits to pose for photographers, give them a box of extra thick facial tissues to wipe up any oil that washes up on shore, and declare the cleanup is under way.

Meanwhile, people all along the river report getting sick from the fumes, wondering why the cleanup is going so slowly, and wondering how bad will it get.

No one really knows. All we can do is sit and wait. How much profit do we suppose Exxon made in the time it took to write this?

                                       

Unholy Alliance: Governments and the nuclear industry

Emails leaked a few days ago show the British government was more concerned with controlling bad public relations for the nuclear industry following the Fukashima disaster than with the safety of its nuclear power plants.  The government had already committed to building several more nuclear plants and wanted to blunt any opposition.

This morning an explosion and fire was reported at a French nuclear plant. Government officials confirmed there was a minor fire, but made no mention of the explosion, and insisted there was no threat to the public. Local officials were taking no chances. Swimming and fishing were banned from the area near the plant.

The plant near Drome is one of France’s oldest, and was recently given a 10-year license extension, even though 32 safety concerns were revealed last week. Ignoring public concern over nuclear power, President Sarkozy last week pledged an additional $1.5 billion for nuclear power development.

In Vermont, legislators concerned about the conditions at the aging Vermont Yankee plant in Vernon, Vt., have voted not to approve a 20-year extension of the plant’s operating license. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has teamed up with Entergy Corp., the plant’s owner, in a lawsuit against the state’s action. An Entergy lawyer last week argued in federal court, in part, that the state has no business being concerned with the safety of its citizens, only whether or not the plant can deliver “reliable” power.

Apparently they have a problem with democracy as well. They further argued that when these elected representatives voted against the license extension, they were reacting to the wishes of their constituency.

Two months after the nuclear disaster began at Fukashima (it’s still going on you just don’t hear about it) the nuclear plant operators and the Japanese government had to admit they had been lying about the seriousness of the disaster of the plant.

Regardless of the pros and cons of nuclear power, how can an honest discussion of the issue take place in an atmosphere of lies and cover-ups?

Vt. Yankee argues state has no business guarding people’s safety

In an argument that defies common sense, attorneys for Entergy Corp., owners of the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant, argued in federal court in Burlington last week that the state of Vermont has no role in deciding whether or not the plant should continue operating based on safety considerations.  Further, they argued that legislators who have voted against re-licensing were responding to their constituents.

How out of touch can they get?

The arguments are summarized in a Brattleboro Reformer article last week.

Much of the argument revolves around semantics. Under Vermont law, the state has final say over the relicensing of any nuclear plant in the state. Entergy agreed to abide by this law when it purchased the plant several years ago. But now that the Vermont legislature has voted not to approve relicensing of the troubled plant, Entergy disputes the state’s right to deny licensing.

Their claim is that the state can only base its decision on the “reliability” of the 40-year-old plant, not safety concerns. Entergy argues that only the Nuclear Regulatory Commssion can address safety concerns.

At this same time, the Associated Press has been running a series of investigative articles showing that the NRC has repeatedly eased up safety regulations in order to bring aging nuclear plants into a semblance of compliance.

NRC helping Entergy Corp. in Vermont Yankee lawsuit

If anyone doubts that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission isn’t the least bit interested in the interests of the people, an exchange at a Senate hearing this week should remove any doubt. The NRC is squarely in the corner of the nuclear industry and considers the wishes of the people utterly irrelevant.

NRC staffers are working with the owners of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power plant in their lawsuit against the state of Vermont, and have been meeting with the Justice Department as well to enlist their assistance.  

And the NRC has refused a request by U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders for information regarding a secret meeting of NRC commissioners to discuss the Vermont Yankee situation with the Justice Department.

Sanders later learned that the NRC has voted 3-2 to support Entergy Corp. in their lawsuit claiming that Vermont has overstepped its powers in refusing to grant the plant a license approval to continue operating.

In Senate hearings this week, NRC chairman Gregory Jaczko conceded that staffers from his agency had met with Entergy Corp officials to discuss the lawsuit. No similar meeting have been held with Vermont state officials or with representatives of any groups opposed to the relicensing. When asked about the secret meeting, Jaczko refused to discuss it.

“We generally like to keep those closed matters, “ he told the senators.

Mass. Joins the fight against Entergy & Vt. Yankee

Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley has filed a brief defending Vermont’s right to determine the future of the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant.

The plant is located within walking distance of the Massachusetts border and has a history of mishaps, most recently a steady stream of leaking radiated water which the plant’s owners seem unable to locate and stop. An investigation into the source of the leaks determined the problems date back to shoddy workmanship when the plant was first built 40 years ago.

Nevertheless, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved a 20-year extension to the plant’s operating license. The current license expires next March, and the plant’ owner’s Entergy Corp., headquartered in Louisiana, has put it up for sale, has tried to negotiate a merger with an Ohio power company, so ar to no avail.

NRC approval notwithstanding, Vermont has the last say in whether or not the plant can continue to operate. The legislature has already voted to not approve an extension. The matter can still come up in the legislature’s next session.

Entergy agreed to abide by the state’s decision when it bought the plant several years ago. Now, faced with the prospect of a shutdown and an expensive de-commissioning process, the company has changed its tune. It has filed a challenge in federal district court, claiming the state has no such jurisdiction. Entergy is claiming federal law gives the NRC the sole power of approval.

Atty. General Coakley disagrees, saying there is nothing in the Atomic Energy Act that takes away a state’s right to regulate nuclear power within its borders.

Entergy also owns the Pilgrim Nuclear power plant in Plymouth, Mass.,and it too is in the process of seeking a license renewal. It, too, has had its share of troubles, including a recent emergency shutdown that was only explained away as “employee error.”

The license enewal process has been put on hold until these and other issues have been addressed.

Conn. DEP strangely silent on Haddam conservation land swap

The state agency charged with protecting and preserving that state’s environment has yet to issue an opinion on a land swap proposal that would turn over 17 acres of state-owned conservation land to private developers.

For conservationists, the outcome has far-reaching implications. It casts into doubt the whole concept of preserving ecologically-important land if there is no assurance that protections will last into perpetuity.

The state purchased the parcel, which sits on a bluff above the Connecticut River, for more than $2 million in 2003 for the purpose of preserving the ecologically sensitive tract. Now a group of developers would like to build a hotel-retail complex on the property.  They propose to give the state 87 acres of land they own a few miles away. They only paid $450,000 for it two years ago, as part of a failed housing development.

The developers have an ally in the legislature who has included the swap in a routine state property conveyance bill.

Now legislators are asking for guidance from the state Dept. of Environmental Protection, but so far none has been forthcoming. The legislature adjourns tomorrow, and many are saying if they don’t hear from the agency, the proposal will be tabled for another year.

An article in today’s Hartford Courant outlines some of the political infighting surrounding this proposal.

NRC stands by bogus Vermont Yankee license renewal

While the operators of the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant were struggling to contain the seemingly endless leaks of radiated water at the 40-year-old plant, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission obediently approved a 20-year extension to its operating license. After all, they have a reputation to uphold. They have yet to turn down a single license renewal application.

“We believe that Entergy, through the exhaustive review we have done, meets all of the requirements and standards to be able to operate for another 20 years,” said NRC commissioner Gregory Jaczko at the time. Of course it was merely coincidence that the approval came just a few days after Jaczko received a letter from two influential Republican senators – neither one from Vermont, but one was from Louisiana, where Entergy Corp., is headquartered.

But despite Jaczko’s claim of an “exhaustive” review, they seemed to have “overlooked” two key points: Vermont Yankee has neither a water discharge permit nor a clean water certificate, both of which are required under the Clean Water Act. And given the contaminated groundwater surrounding the plant, and the threat to the Connecticut River, this is unlikely.

Does this bother them? Of course not!

A spokesman for the NRC told the Brattleboro Reformer today that it’s “doubtful” that the NRC would put a hold on its approval of the plant’s license.

U.S. Nuke plants to enter digital age – soon

Just when I thought the U.S. nuclear industry couldn’t get more pathetically ridiculous than it already is, a news item today proudly announces that a nuclear reactor in South Carolina will become the first in the country to have digital controls installed on its safety and operating equipment.

Think about it.

The technology they’ve been using to ensure the safety of everyone around them is no more advanced than your grandfather’s wind-up alarm clock and slide rule.

Pilgrim Nuclear goes on “unplanned” shutdown

As long as we’re on the subject of safety, the Pilgrim Yankee Nuclear power plant in Plymouth suddenly shut down two weeks ago. The company would only say it was “operator error,” but couldn’t say how long it would stay shutdown. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, meanwhile, said its sending a special investigative team to find out what happened, something that they’ve done only a handful of times before.

Seabrook concrete weakened by water seepage

Just up the coast from Plymouth is the Seabrook Nuclear plant in Seabrook, NH. A report issued last week found that groundwater was undermining the concrete housing of the cables that run the plant’s safety system. Leakage into the tunnels could short circuit the safety system. This was first discovered sometime last year, but not publicized until last week. No sense rushing things. The NRC is happy to report no danger to the public.

It might be useful to remember it wasn’t the earthquake that caused the meltdown at Fukashima, but water from the tsunami that short-circuited the backup safety system.

Fight over Haddam wildlife sanctuary makes a mockery of conservation effort

The Clark Creek Wildlife Management Area in Haddam, Conn., sits on a sandy bluff overlooking the Connecticut River. It’s not very large, just 17 acres, but it’s a valuable riverine habitat, home to a wide array of plant and animal life, some of which may be endangered or protected species.

The parcel was considered so significant that the state of Connecticut determined it was worth preserving, and paid $1.3 million in 2003 to purchase it.

Adjacent to the parcel is the Riverhouse banquet facility. They would like to build a hotel and retail complex on the land. They’re chanting the jobs and boosting the local economy mantra.

To accomplish this, they propose to swap 87 acres of nearly worthless land they own in Higganum. It was land they had purchased for $450,000 in 2009 for a housing development that never materialized. Their plan is backed by the local business community, and they have a powerful political ally, state Sen. Eileen Daly (D-Westbrook) who chairs a legislative finance committee.

Sen. Daly plans has attached the land swap as part of a larger state property conveyance bill. The attempt has failed twice before.

And there’s a new threat on the horizon. The incoming state commissioner for energy and the environment has said he supports the swap, and may approve the swap administratively, with no legislative approval needed.

Meanwhile, conservationists are once again rallying support for saving the sanctuary.

The implications of this deal go way beyond preserving one small parcel. The land was purchased with public money for the purpose of preserving it. To give it up at the whim of a private development makes a mockery of whole notion of land conservation.

In Case of Nuclear Disaster, Don’t Call the President

I had always thought that should a major nuclear disaster occur, something like Fukashima, that the response would be in the hands of the president. Not so.

A recent article in the Wall Street Journal points out that the sole authority for the response to an emergency lies with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. What measures to take to control the situation will come from the NRC chairman, currently Gregory Jaczko. As for evacuation orders, those have to come from state and local officials, not the president.

So what can we expect?

If history is any guide, their first response will be “there is no risk to the public.” This is what they always say whenever anything goes wrong at a nuclear plant. As for accurate information, forget it. It took three years before the true details of what happened at Three Mile Island became public.

During this ongoing crisis in Japan, information has been equally hard to come by. The mainstream news media has gone on to more important things – like Schwarzeneger’s love child and the royal wedding.

 You might recall that the news media was scrupulous in not calling what was going on a “meltdown.” Now that the media is no longer reporting anything about this, the nuclear agency in Japan last week conceded that a meltdown had indeed occurred at one of the reactors. You might also recall that they kept saying how this wasn’t as bad as Chernobyl, but they eventually had to concede it’s pretty darn close.

Among the other things that have gone largely unreported – Congress has decided to cut funding for safety inspections and measures at nuclear power plants, as part of the emergency budget adopted to avoid a government shutdown.

As time runs out for Vt. Yankee, debate heats up

With less than a year left before its operating license expires, the debate over the future of the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant is reaching radioactive levels.

On one side are the 39-year-old plant’s owners, Louisiana-based Entergy Corp., and its supporters, mostly business interests and plant workers who say the Vernon, Vt., plant is vital to the state’s economy. On the other are a growing number of Vermonters, including Gov. Peter Shumlin and many in the legislature, who cite a string of problems over the years and say the plant is unsafe and should not be given a 20-year extension to its license.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which has never denied a license to any plant, has given its approval to the renewal. In issuing the approval, the NRC insisted that the plant is safe to operate in spite of a long history of problems. It also ignored its own report on recent problems that exonerated Entergy from any fault, instead blaming problems with the original construction.

However, Vermont is the only state where the people still have a say in the process. The renewal requires the approval of the legislature, which has already voted against it once, though the matter can come up again before next year’s expiration date.

The debate is being carried out against the backdrop of the ongoing nuclear disaster in Japan and the Obama administration’s support of nuclear energy. The discussion is further clouded by broken promises, falsehoods, and misrepresentations by Entergy officials.

Last week, Entergy filed suit in federal district court in Burlington arguing that the Vermont legislature should not be able to override the NRC’s approval of the license renewal. The company also filed an injunction requesting that the plant be allowed to continue past the March 2012 closing date until the suit is settled.

Gov. Peter Shumlin and other state officials have vowed to fight Entergy’s lawsuit.

When Entergy purchased Vermont Yankee in 2002, the company agreed to abide by the state legislature’s jurisdiction over the plant. Entergy CEO J. Wayne Leonard last week took out a full page advertisement in several Vermont newspapers to explain why they are reneging on the agreement.

His reasoning?

“That was not a concern to us back in 2002,” he writes.

As recently as 2009, a company spokesman reiterated Entergy’s support for public involvement in the approval process. Up to that point, while there was some opposition to the plant, most Vermonters  generally seemed to accept it.

Then came the reports of leaks, with conflicting information from both Entergy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. At one point Entergy and the NRC tried to organize a meeting about the problems – but scheduled it out-of-state (in New Hampshire), did not invite the press, and invited only public officials and others who supported the plant. Once that became public, the plan was quickly scuttled in favor of a more open forum in Brattleboro.

The ongoing nuclear disaster in Japan sharpened the debate even further, since the Japanese reactors are of the same design as Vermont Yankee. Nevertheless, plant officials continue to insist “it can’t happen here.”

Earlier this week, Vermont’s third largest utility company decided not to enter into a new contract with Vermont Yankee. A company representative insisted that a major accident was unlikely. While it’s true that a tsunami in Vermont is unlikely, and a major earthquake is unlikely, there are many other scenarios that could trigger a disaster.

In fact, just a few years ago one wall of a cooling tower collapsed for no other reason than it was poorly built.

And so it goes.

Opposition gains ground in battle against Northern Pass

Maybe the developers of the Northern Pass transmission line thought they could slip their plans by without anyone noticing – but no such luck. After the initial round of public hearings and a groundswell of opposition, the project has been delayed while they go back to the drawing boards and come up with something different.

The plan is to build a high-voltage transmission line from the Canadian border near Pittsburg, NH, to Franklin, NH, a distance of some 140 miles. Steel towers from 70 to 150 feet high, one every 1,000 feet, would support the line along 400-foot right-of-way.  It’s all part of a deal between Northeast Utilities and Hydro-Quebec to bring power from Canada to southern New England.

It should be noted that this is strictly a private enterprise. No government agency or entity requested it. But the early publicity was seductive. Lots of cheap new power from a popular alternative source – hydropower, lots of new jobs, etc. It looked like a done deal. New Hampshire’s governor was all for it.

The same consulting firm that drew up the initial plans was then hired by the EPA to write the environmental impact report.

But wait! Doesn’t that sound like a conflict of interest?

And then people found out that all this wonderful power would flow through a big cut into the White Mountain National Forest, and through some prime tourist area. Questions were raised.

Then, Sen. Kelly Ayotte and Rep. Charlie Bass – most of New Hampshire’s congressional delegation = asked the U.S. Dept. of Energy to take a closer look at this.

The result is a small, maybe temporary victory for opponents. The developers have asked for an extension while they go back and re-work some of their plans. Stay tuned.

Someone doesn't like my blog

Following up on a previous blog about BP resuming oil drilling in the Gulf and Transocean giving millions in bonuses to their executives, I wrote another blog entry this morning discussing the decision to put the bonus money into a victims compensation fund. The main theme was that a little outrage can do some good.

I went on to point out that both Transocean and BP have been dragging their feet in paying out the compensation money to Gulf oil spill victims. When I was done, I expected it to be shared on my Facebook page, but to my surprise I received a notice informing me that it  had "content marked as abusive" and some other nonsense, and so it was blocked.

Anyone reading this on the Ecocryptic blog website only needs to read the next entry down to see how ridiculous this is. I'm asking for a clarification, but haven't heard back from the Facebook people.

It'll be interesting to see if this entry gets bocked as well.

A Little Outrage Helps Transocean See the Light

If anyone doubts the effectiveness of shedding a little daylight on corporate behavior, consider the outburst following the revelation that Transocean paid out millions in bonuses to its top executives for its “exemplary safety record.”

This was the company that was building the Deepwater Horizon oil rig that exploded in the Gulf of Mexico, killing 11 workers and spilling millions of gallons of oil into the gulf. They had either forgotten the whole thing, or considered the workers expendable – just the cost of doing business.

When news of the bonuses surfaced a few days ago, the blogosphere lit up with outrage that finally filtered to the larger news media. The company thought better of their decision, and the executives announced the money would go to the victims’ compensation fund.

That sounds nice, but the story’s not over. Both BP and Transocean have set up victims compensation funds, ostensibly to pay for the damages they caused. BP has launched a slick PR campaign making it seem that everything has gone back to normal, and people are getting the money they deserve for the losses they suffered.

Not so.

Both Transocean and BP have been dragging their feet paying out for the damage they caused, either by being slow in issuing checks, paying out way less than expected, or in many cases simply not paying at all.

 The state governments of Louisiana, Mississsippi, and Alabama are all in the process of filing lawsuits to get them to shake loose some of their billions.

We see the ads, but we don’t see the news. Why not?

April Fools: US gov’t gives BP go-ahead for more Gulf drilling

At first I thought it was some kind of sick joke, but unfortunately it’s true.

It was just a year ago this month that the Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded, killing 11 workers and touching off one of the greatest environmental disasters in history. Now comes word that BP will resume deep water oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico beginning this summer.

Even sadder, this news was reported first by the European news agency Reuters, the Sunday Times of London, and another British newspaper The Guardian. As of this morning, no major American news outlet had yet reported it. Why?

Who do you see paying for the evening news? It comes courtesy of BP buying time for those commercials featuring happy yokels talking about what a great job the company has done cleaning up the mess and handing out money.

A few other stories never made it to the evening news … BP stock went up when it spread the word that it wouldn‘t be paying out as much in damages as it had said it would. That was reported in the Financial Times, another British news outlet, but never made it to the news here. And then there was the small matter of the “missing” laptop that had the claims information for thousands of claimants. Hey, anybody can make a mistake. We all know how easy it is to lose a laptop.

Back to the drilling.

According to the people who are supposed to be regulating offshore drilling, everything is all better now.

Since February 17, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement has granted eight of these permits. Bureau director Michael Bromwich told The Guardian the permits were issued because of the “industry’s ability to satisfy the enhanced safety requirements.”

That’s comforting. The investigation into the Deepwater Horizon explosion found that BP and the other companies involved pressured workers to take safety shortcuts to speed the project along. The Justice Department, by the way, is “considering” manslaughter charges in the case. No sense rushing things, I suppose.

It gets more bizarre.

The Swiss company Transocean, which was building the rig for BP, announced this week that it was handing out bonuses to its executives for their “exemplary” safety record. The company also reported an $800 million loss in the last quarter of last year. That merited a $375,000 bonus for CEO Steven Newman.

Go figure.

NH’s Northern Pass – Can you call a bad idea a success?

New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch has come down squarely on the side of the proposed Northern Pass transmission line project, apparently accepting as gospel the power company’s usual vague assertion that it will mean cheaper electricity and more jobs.

In an interview with the Concord Monitor, Lynch also minimized opposition to the plan, saying it only remained for PSNH to convince a few disgruntled locals for the project to succeed.

PSNH, by the way, stands for Public Service of New Hampshire, the sarcastically-named power company that provides electricity for most of New Hampshire but has nothing to do with “public service.” It’s owned by Northeast Utilities, which cares not one whit for the public or for service, only for its corporate bottom line.

The plan is to bring a new transmission line from Canada through to southern New Hampshire, buying the power from Hydro-Quebec. To do that, means cutting through a part of White Mountain National Forest as well as through other undeveloped areas. It would also pass through several residential areas, bringing with it 100-foot (or more) tall towers, about 6 per mile, and a wide swath of cleared land.

A number of public hearings were held this month, and a public comment period ends next month. The problem is, the plans as laid ut are prelimnary - “fluid” – according to a company spokesman. The route can change. The height of the towers may vary. They haven’t really considered burying the cables, which would cause far less disruption.

The  Manchester Union Leader carried a pretty good outline of just where te project stands. Stay tuned.

Japan’s meltdown prompts much-needed scrutiny

Sadly, it took a major tragedy get governments and the media to take a critical look at the pros and cons of nuclear power and the corruption of the nuclear industry and their cronies in government regulation.

Can nuclear power ever be safe? I don’t know. If it can be, would it be better to build smaller, more localized reactors, rather than the sprawling complexes we now see? Instead of watching one reactor after another explode and meltdown while all we can do is stand helplessly by, wouldn’t any accident be smaller and therefore more containable?

If not, then nuclear power becomes a dangerous and expensive way to boil water.

The media is finally - though not universally – wandering off the party line that had come to accept nuclear energy as the power source of the future. Clean. Safe. Reliable. It’s all over the industry literature.

Then there’s the unhealthy alliance between regulators and the industry. From the beginning, there were members of the scientific community who had serious reservations about the type of reactors that we see both in Japan and here in the US. They were concerned about just the type of problems we’ve been seeing all week.

But GE, the company that designed and sold the reactors told the NRC they didn’t want any interference, and so the NRC ignored the warnings. And here we are.

This is the same GE that polluted the Housatonic and is now dragging it feet on cleaning it up. The same civic-minded GE that donated carcinogen-laced soil for Pittsfield’s playgrounds. The same GE that insists it should get a contract to build jet engines for fighter planes that will never be used – those are being built by another company. This is the same GE that has profited handsomely from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. This is the same GE that owns NBC news.

Nuclear apologists in full-court press downplaying Japan disaster

To hear the nuclear industry’s lackeys describe it, the ongoing disaster in Japan is not much more than an inconvenience.

Let’s start with our friends at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Their position is, as always, “no threat to the public safety, no need to worry.” And of course, there’s the ever-popular “it can’t happen here,” line of argument, because our nuclear power plants are so much better. Just take a look at Vermont Yankee – it’s been leaking radioactive tritium for more than a year, and a cooling tower collapsed for no other reason than it was badly built.

Their position is contradicted by the facts. First, U.S. Navy ships heading to Japan changed course when their instruments detected high levels of radiation in the air. The explanation? Their instruments were too sensitive.

Then there was Callie Crossley, Boston media commentator, appearing on CNN, objecting to the use of the word “meltdown” when all the reactor did was explode. She said she felt much better that it wasn’t actually melting down. Now officials are referring to a “partial” meltdown, whatever that might be.

And then there was an NBC correspondent this evening whose story was that the quake/tsunami victims had more the worry about than a little radiation.

All these reports, and plenty of others, seem to be designed to lull the public into thinking that we should plunge on with more nuclear plants. Where are the calls to re-think this idea?

NRC’s Flirtation with Nuclear Disaster

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission extended its perfect record of kowtowing to the nuclear power industry with its announcement this past week that it would approve a 20-year extension to the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant’s operating license.

The commission’s “Hear No Evil, See No Evil” approach to oversight has resulted in 52 straight license approvals. In fact, it has never failed to approve a license extension for any reason.

The NRC’s blind approval is especially ridiculous given the history of Vermont Yankee. Even now, the plant has been steadily leaking radioactive tritium into the groundwater for more than a year, from several different leaks. As soon as one is located and repaired, another springs up. It’s going on right now.

A few years ago, one of the cooling towers collapsed of its own accord – it didn’t take a hurricane or an earthquake or anything else. It just fell down. The resulting investigation identified shoddy workmanship when it was first built. That’s encouraging.

Now this takes on even more urgency given the trouble in Japan. Just last nigh, on one of the news broadcasts, an “expert” asserted that Japan’s nuclear power plants were the safest in the world, designed with earthquakes in mind. Following last night’s explosion, there’s a lot of backtracking.

This raises serious concerns about allowing Vermont Yankee to continue operating. Thankfully, the Vermont state government has the final say, and hopefully they’ll take all this into consideration.

Environmental Court ruling could spell more trouble for Vermont Yankee

In a ruling this week concerning groundwater contamination from a quarrying operation, a judge for the Vermont Environmental Court found that state regulators must take the contamination into account even though the contamination has not yet gone beyond the quarry property. Any contamination of groundwater is considered a violation of public trust. Regulators could order the operation to be shut down until the situation is corrected.

The same might said of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant in Vernon, Vt., which has been leaking tritiated water for more than a year, apparently from several different surces. Entergy Corp., owner of the 39-year-old plant, say there is no indication that the contamination has gone outside the plant’s perimeter, and poses n threat to the public.

Opponents say enough is enough. They want the trouble-plagued shut down now, or at the very least a year from now when its operating license expires. The owners are both seeking a 20-year extension of the license and trying to sell the plant.

Vermont’s environmental secretary lands somewhere squarely in the middle. Deb Markowitz told the Brattleboro Reformer that the Environmental Court’s decision does not set a precedent, and that the company is appealing the matter to the state Supreme Court. She said her department is studying the matter.

My question is, what’s it going to take?

There are really two levels of argument. One can continue to discuss the pros and cons of nuclear energy as a power source. That’s fine.

But when it comes to Vermont Yankee, with its long history of deceit, incompetence, and accidents, it’s really time to shut it down.

GE’s “Smart Clean-up Coalition” hoax exposed

The group seemed more than a little suspect when I first came across it a while ago, a now I know why, thanks to an article in today’s Boston Globe.

They call themselves the Smart Clean-up Coalition, and their “mission” is purportedly to support a reasonable approach to the problem of cleaning up the Housatonic River. They back something called  “monitored natural recovery.” For non-native speakers of obsfuscation, this means they want to sit by and watch the river clean itself.

A little background to this might help.

For more than half a century, General Electric operated a major plant complex in Pittsfield, Mass., along the Housatonic River, merrily pumping carcinogenic PCBs into the river with no serious interference from regulators. It followed the usual pattern. First they denied there was any harm in PCBs, then denied they were doing anything wrong, then threatened to pull out of town if they were forced to clean up their act.

In the end, the town’s biggest employer did just that, leaving behind a complex of big empty buildings, lots of people out of work, and one of the most polluted rivers in the country. That was about 40 years ago, and GE has been dragging its feet on the river cleanup ever since.

Now, as the Environmental Protection Agency is preparing to determine how best to clean up the next critical part of the river, this new group has popped up, with a Facebook Page, a blog, and press releases all pushing for this “less aggressive” approach. It is, coincidentally, the least expensive approach for GE. In a tortured bit of logic, they claim this will do the least ecological damage!

On paper, the “coalition” is made up of banking and Chamber of Commerce types, and when asked, they at first denied they had any connection to GE. Then a local paper discovered that GE had given them $300,000 to help them along with their “mission.”

Hopefully, as the EPA considers how best to proceed, they will realize that this so-called coalition and their bogus, benign sounding “monitored natural recovery” has been completely discredited.

http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2011/02/27/ge_donations_to_river_group_stir_controversy/

http://www.facebook.com/smartrivercleanup

Northern Pass or Northern Gash?

Once again we’re finding out just how expendable our national forests are. This time it’s about cutting a high-power transmission line through the White Mountain National Forest.

So here’s the deal. Northeast Utilities wants to buy electricity for HydroQuebec, mostly for its customers in southern New Hampshire, though other parts of New England will get some, too. Maybe not entirely free of controversy, it does provide a reasonably clean, renewable source of energy. It’s important for the region as well, especially the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant, the Titanic of the nuclear power industry, may be out of business by next March.

But here’s the catch. They say they need to build a new transmission line to carry all that power, and it has to cut through about 10 miles of the White Mountain National Forest. According to the Appalachian Mountain Club, this new line will create a 450-wide corridor, with steel pylons 135 feet high. Maybe it should be called the Northern Gash, instead.

It will cross the Appalachian Trail, come with a half-mile of the Eliza Brook shelter and 4 miles of the Lonesome Lake Hut.

Compared to other parts of the country, New England is a small region, with precious little in the way of wilderness areas, and even those are constantly under threat from once kind of development or another. We must protect what’s left.

There is already a transmission line from Canada that runs down through Vermont. Is it impossible to use that?

Residents along the proposed route are already mobilizing to block this plan. They deserve everyone’s support.

Writing about what matters

I’ve been writing all my life, pretty much, but I’m fairly new to blogging. I started a blog a couple of years ago, mostly to find out what this was all about. I wanted to write about nature, the environment – things that I care about, that I think about, that I draw strength from.

Sometimes I would write about interesting places I’d been to, things I’d seen. That was the naturalist in me. Just as often I’d write about something I came across in the news. That would be the reporter in me.

So now I’ve decided to separate those two selves. Here, under The Ecocryptic, youll find newsy things about environmental issues that have caught my eye, and sometimes raised my ire. It’ll be my way of spreading the word, provoking thought, maybe even action.

There’s so much going on, so much that’s important, but I’m afraid it’s getting lost in all the noise. All we can do is try. Stay tuned.

My nature-writing will be at the other site, along with my archived posts, perambulations.wordpress.com and some of my current reporting can be found at Digital Journal.

I hope people will read both. As I go along I’ll try to figure out ways to everything linked up.