This past weekend, Louisiana Environmental Action Network technical supervisor Wilma Subra toured the banks of the Mississippi River through Orleans, St. Bernard and Plaquemines parishes to witness firsthand the effects of last week's devastating oil spill. She has posted her report to LEAN's website here.

Three days after Wednesday's accident, the broken barge was still in the river near New Orleans, propped up against a bridge and leaking fuel oil, she reports. Crews are still working to pump out the remaining oil and salvage the barge, a task that could take days, according to the Times-Picayune. However, the Coast Guard expects the river to be fully open to traffic today.

Meanwhile, booms that have been placed along the Mississippi's banks to keep the oil away are in many cases trapping the pollution against the shore, Subra says. The smell of petroleum hangs heavy over the entire river, the banks of which are coated with tarry oil, as seen in this LEAN photograph taken on the border of Orleans and St. Bernard parishes:


Of the more than 400,000 gallons of oil spilled, only about 72,000 gallons have been cleaned up so far, the Times-Picayune reports. As feared, the pollution is affecting local wildlife, like this oil-stained egret Subra photographed near the Oakville, La. community:


The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services says it has reports of almost 100 oil-contaminated creatures. Besides egrets, they include ducks, herons, black vultures, beavers, muskrats and American alligators. Field teams are using propane cannons and large balloons resembling predators in an attempt to ward off birds. People who spot oiled wildlife are asked to call the agency's hotline at (504) 393-0353. A wildlife rehabilitation team has been set up in Venice, La.

As the disaster continues to play out, LEAN and the Lower Mississippi Riverkeeper are calling on state and federal agencies to take a number of urgent steps to protect environmental and public health. They include:

* make sure the environment is completely restored;

* assess the extent of environmental contamination and associated economic impacts over the short and long term;

* carefully examine drinking water taken from the Mississippi River downstream from the spill;

* monitor environmental damage -- and specifically effects to wetland ecosystems -- over the long term; and

* assess the disaster's implications for the Gulf of Mexico including its Dead Zone, an 8,000-square mile area off Louisiana's coast where pollution runoff has made life unsustainable.

To read Subra's full report and see more photos, click here. There are also photos of the incident at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's website.

(Photos from LEAN's website)

Labels: environment, Mississippi River, new orleans, offshore drilling, oil industry, oil spills

The Lower Mississippi Riverkeeper and Atchafalaya Basinkeeper patrolled the air yesterday to check on the section of the Mississippi River affected by Wednesday's oil spill. What they found was "not encouraging," they report:

Oil continues to leak from the wreckage of the barge and there were extensive oil slicks on the river from the wreckage to the extent of our patrol (near Carlisle).

A pilot we spoke to said that it was like this all the way to the Gulf of Mexico. It appears that oil has been continuously leaking from the barge in substantial quantities since the wreck occurred. Disturbingly, there appears to be little effort to contain and collect the leaking oil. While many areas on the river have been boomed off to prevent the oil from getting into things like intakes, diversions and other waterways, there seems to be little real attempt to collect the spilling oil. It appears that the oil is simply being allowed to escape into the Gulf of Mexico.

In response to the ongoing disaster, the groups are calling for systemic changes, including:

* a review of the safety practices for the shipping of dangerous cargo in Louisiana;

* labeling of barges so first responders can tell from a distance what materials they're dealing with;

* a requirement that petroleum products and other hazardous materials be transported in double-hulled containers;

* an additional vessel to accompany hazardous cargo, as with oversized loads on highways; and

* better communication during an incident so local officials can take steps to protect drinking water supplies and evacuate residents if necessary.

The full report with more photos is online here.

Meanwhile, the New Orleans Times-Picayune reports, the company that owned the tugboat implicated in this week's accident was involved in another collision on the Mississippi River near New Orleans just 11 days earlier.

On July 12, DRD Towing's Ruby E sank after colliding with the Martin Challenger about four miles upriver from the site of this week's accident. The towing firm also owns the Mel Oliver, which was moving the oil-bearing barge that collided with the Tintomara Wednesday.

In the earlier incident, the tugboat crew was properly licensed. In this week's collision, however, none of the Mel Oliver crew members had the proper credentials to operate on the river.

Labels: environment, Mississippi River, new orleans, offshore drilling, oil industry, oil spills

The massive oil slick from the crash that occurred yesterday on the Mississippi near New Orleans has now spread 100 miles to the Gulf of Mexico. Meanwhile, it's come to light that the barge carrying the 400,000 gallons of fuel oil that spilled was being moved by a tugboat when it was struck by the Liberian-flagged tanker Tintomara -- and the tugboat operator had only an apprentice mate's license, and no one else on board was properly licensed to operate the boat. The Coast Guard's investigation continues.

So far cleanup crews have contained only about 140 barrels of oil out of the more than 9,900 spilled, the New Orleans Times-Picayune reports. Several birds and a beaver have been found coated in oil, and wildlife officials continue to search the area around the spill. Staff at the Delta National Wildlife Refuge are overseeing the placement of oil-collecting booms in an efforts to keep the pollution from entering wetlands, where it's feared the oil could contaminate important food sources for migrating birds.

The disaster has shut down traffic along the Mississippi, with some 90 vessels stuck at various points along the river this morning. The river could be closed for days or weeks for cleanup operations, which would have an enormous economic impact. Click here for more details and updates from the Times-Picayune.

Labels: environment, Mississippi River, new orleans, offshore drilling, oil industry, oil spills

The Times Picayune reported on the new study released by AMBIO, a peer-reviewed science journal, which found that coastal wetlands provide $23.2 billion worth of protection from hurricane-related flooding in the United States each year. As quoted in the Times Picayune:

“Coastal wetlands provide 'horizontal levees' that are maintained by nature and are far more cost-effective than constructed levees,” wrote the authors of the study.

The study also found that:

• Louisiana has lost $29.4 billion in flood protection benefits from the disappearance of 1,927 square miles of coastal wetlands during the past century
• Louisiana lost more than $1.1 billion in benefits as a result of the erosion of 77 square miles of wetlands during Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005

Citing the importance of coastal wetlands for protection from severe hurricanes, like Hurricane Katrina, the report concluded that investing in the maintenance and restoration of coastal wetlands will prove to be “an extremely cost-effective strategy for society.”

For more discussion on the topic, check out this post on "horizontal levees" over at the Daily Kos, which underscored that the new "study provides a means of comparing, dollar for dollar, the effectiveness of manmade levees and natural wetlands in protecting against what will surely be more frequent and devastating floods."

Labels: coastal protection, environment, Gulf Coast Reconstruction Watch, louisiana, wetlands

As politicians from across the South clamor to lift the federal ban on offshore oil drilling, the disaster that took place early this morning near New Orleans highlights the very real dangers faced by oil-producing communities.

Around 1:30 a.m., a chemical tanker collided with a fuel barge on the Mississippi River, ripping the barge in two and spilling over 400,000 gallons of unrefined, tar-like fuel oil into the water. The U.S. Coast Guard has shut down a 29-mile stretch of the river around the city, and an oil slick at least 12 miles long has spread along the water.

Drinking water intakes have been closed along the river's West Bank in Algiers, Gretna, St. Bernard Parish and Plaquemines Parish, and residents have been asked to conserve water. Water flowing through the tap is from reserve supplies, which could run out in many areas by tonight, the New Orleans Times-Picayune reports. Fortunately, the East Bank's water intakes are upriver of the crash site.

The owner of the barge that way carrying the oil -- American Commercial Lines of Jeffersonville, Ind. -- is reportedly paying for the cleanup effort even though it has not been found responsible for the collision. State environmental officials are coordinating a massive effort to keep the oil from leaching into wetlands south of the crash site.

The spill apparently occurred when a 600-foot tanker called "Tintomara" -- owned by Laurin Maritime of Houston and sailing under the Liberian flag -- crashed into the barge carrying the fuel oil. The tanker, which did not leak, was carrying about 4.2 million gallons of biodiesel and nearly 1.3 million gallons of styrene, according to the Associated Press. The Coast Guard is still investigating the cause of the crash.

A heavy stench of petroleum has been hanging over New Orleans all day. The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality has dispatched emergency responders with portable air monitors to patrol areas around the city's Riverwalk and French Quarter, but they say they're detecting hydrocarbons at levels too low to require any action.

(Photo of wrecked barge and tugboats near the Crescent City Connection Bridge courtesy of DEQ)

Labels: environment, Mississippi River, new orleans, offshore drilling, oil industry, oil spills

WalkScore has released its annual list of the Most Walkable Cities in the United States. Sadly, no Southern cities crack the top 10 list. The highest-ranking city -- Louisville, KY -- comes in at #15.

In fact, out of the 40 cities profiled on the website, which is backed by the environmentally-focused Sightline Institute, seven of the bottom 10 are in the South:

31. El Paso
32. San Antonio
33. Fort Worth
34. Kansas City
35. Memphis
36. Oklahoma City
37. Indianapolis
38. Charlotte
39. Nashville
40. Jacksonville

But don't hang up your shoes and hop in your car just yet: Even in the metro areas most hostile to hoofin' it, WalkScore lists the best neighborhoods for walking, as well as a list of 138 Walkers' Paradises across the country (top Southern entry: at #53, Dallas' West End Historic District -- one of only six Southern cities on the list).

The website also points to a key piece of improving urban walk-ability -- and all the benefits that includes, from healthier people to a healthier environment: better transportation policy.

Curious about their methodology? Read about how they do their rankings, and what makes a walkable city.

Labels: energy policy, environment, environmental health, sightline institute, urban issues, urban south, walking, walkscore

There will be a grand-opening celebration next month for a new pediatric clinic in the impoverished and predominantly African-American community of West Anniston, Ala. The clinic was financed by the $700 million legal settlement over manufacturer Monsanto's reckless contamination of the local environment with polychlorinated biphenyls, highly toxic and now-banned chemicals once used as industrial coolants.

The Pediatric Care Center of Northeast Alabama will be headed by Dr. Angela Martin, a longtime Anniston pediatrician and Emory University graduate charged with providing the care guaranteed to children under the settlement. Martin is the first African-American woman to work in private practice in Anniston.

A study released earlier this year found that adults in Anniston have four times the amount of PCBs in their body as the typical U.S. resident. While Anniston's children have PCB levels similar to other U.S. children, those children whose parents were exposed to PCBs have significantly lower IQ scores than those were weren't. They also show decreased problem-solving ability.

Besides addressing contamination-related health concerns in individual patients, the new clinic will also serve as a center of research on the link between PCBs and neurological problems. Through her own Martin Foundation, the doctor has received numerous grants for her work in the community from government and private organizations as well as corporate sponsors.

Martin hopes the grand-opening event will inspire young people to become doctors. She also wants to send a message to the white-dominated environmental movement.

"Black people are talking about the environment, too," Martin says, "but we're talking about it from a health point of view."

The grand opening is set for 10 a.m. Saturday, Aug. 9 at the new clinic, located at 321 Leighton Ave.

Labels: Alabama, Anniston, environment, environmental health, environmental justice, Monsanto, PCBs

North Carolina is one of the last Southern states to still support the federal ban on new offshore oil drilling, but lifting that ban has now become an issue in the governor's race.

This week, Republican nominee and Charlotte Mayor Pat McCrory (photo right) announced that he would issue an executive order allowing "safe, technologically sound" exploration and drilling -- and he criticized his Democratic opponent, Lt. Gov. Beverly Perdue, for her opposition to new drilling:

"Too many of our elected officials simply reject the possibility of offshore drilling with scare tactics. Lt. Gov. Perdue says she is '100 percent opposed' to the idea of examining deep sea drilling, claiming one 'Exxon Valdez could destroy North Carolina coastline forever.' (Maybe someone should inform the lieutenant governor that the Exxon Valdez was a boat with a drunken captain, not a rig.) Instead of a balanced and comprehensive approach, she endorses 'green energy alternatives' as the only solution."

Let's ignore for a moment the fact that McCrory is wrong about Captain Joseph Hazelwood being drunk at the time of the accident, a charge the longtime Exxon employee successfully defended himself against during his trial.

Instead, let's consider what McCrory values: balance.

What's the balance between what we stand to gain through drilling offshore versus what we stand to lose?

Because despite McCrory's downplaying of them, the potential environmental losses of offshore oil drilling are considerable. Even if pipelines are used to transport oil ashore, there's still a very real risk of leaks and spills -- and these can be catastrophic. In 2000, for example, a broken pipeline dumped about 1,300 tons of oil into the waters off Brazil, and a pipeline break off Nigeria's coast two years earlier spilled some 14,300 tons of oil into the sea, according to the United Nations Environmental Program.

There can also be spills related to the drilling process itself, including "blowouts" that result in the uncontrolled flow of fluids from an oil well. A blowout at the Ixtoc I exploratory oil well off the Mexican coast (pictured left) that took place over a nine-month period from 1979 to 1980 resulted in the dumping of some 475,000 tons of oil, while a blowout near Nigeria in 1980 spilled 54,000 tons of oil and destroyed more than 800 acres of mangroves.

There's also potential risk to offshore oil facilities from hurricanes -- a serious problem for the North Carolina coast.

In recent weeks, proponents of expanded offshore drilling have been downplaying the effect that hurricanes Katrina and Rita had on oil operations in the Gulf of Mexico. Speaking in favor of expanded drilling last week on Fox News, Louisiana Gov. Bobbie Jindal claimed there had been "no major spills" after Katrina and Rita. Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain delivered the same message earlier in the month.

But Jindal, McCain and the other politicians deploying this talking point are simply wrong.

In fact, Katrina and Rita caused 124 offshore spills that dumped a total of 743,700 gallons of pollution into the ocean, as Think Progress reports. At the same time, onshore spills from pipelines, tanks and refineries totaled 9 million gallons, as compared to the 10.8 million gallons released by the Exxon Valdez. A single spill of 1 million gallons from the Murphy Oil refinery in Chalmette, La. (photo right) spread over one square mile and contaminated some 1,700 homes.

Clearly, the environmental risks of drilling for oil off North Carolina's coast are considerable.

So how much do we stand to gain from expanded offshore drilling?

The U.S. Energy Information Agency estimates that production from currently protected areas would reach 200,000 barrels per day in about 20 years. And that's for the entire U.S. continental shelf -- not just North Carolina's coast.

That amount represents a drop in the bucket of demand, as the United States now consumes about 21 million gallons of oil per day day.

Meanwhile, the "green energy alternatives" McCrory scoffs at could have a bigger impact on boosting the availability of oil. For example, a new analysis by the Center for Economic and Policy Research found that if the federal government had simply increased vehicle mileage standards after 1985 at the rate of just 0.4 miles per gallon per year for both cars and light trucks, the savings would be equal to 3.3 million barrels of oil per day through 2027, when offshore drilling is expected to reach peak capacity.

(Pat McCrory photo from the Charlotte Mayor's Office website, Ixtoc I oil spill photo from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Office of Response and Restoration, and Murphy Oil spill photo from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.)

Labels: energy policy, environment, environmental politics, north carolina, offshore drilling, Pat McCrory

Last week, Florida Power & Light filed papers with the state's Public Service Commission opposing the request of an activist with the Palm Beach County Environmental Coalition to intervene in the company's petition to convert an oil-burning power plant in Riviera Beach into one powered by natural gas.

The move comes after Panagioti Tsolkas of Lake Worth, Fla. submitted papers to the commission critical of FPL's conversion plans and accused the company of "greenwashing." PBCEC points out that gas-fired power plants are a major source of global warming pollution as well as other toxic emissions that present a threat to humans and ecosystems.

Tsolkas, the PBCEC co-chair, was arrested last month at a press conference where he announced a lawsuit seeking to stop construction at another FPL power plant after someone apparently alerted authorities to an outstanding trespass warrant against him. He was also among 27 protesters arrested in February for blockading the construction entrance to the FPL site.

In an interview published last Independence Day by a Fort Lauderdale blog titled Amuse the Ants, Tsolkas was asked about his most frightening confrontation with authorities:

Panagioti: This recent fight with FP&L I think. I wouldn’t say frightening, although I think that element could be there because I think its one of the most massive entities that I’ve ever been involved in taking on and challenging, and realizing how well-connected they are, even within the environmental community. I think their connections go very deep and being nervous about what sort of impact that’s gonna have on peoples live who get involved in protesting it. I don’t think it's any cause to stay away from the fight but I do think people should keep FP&L in check. We had the civil disobedience act there at their shareholders meeting and some people were arrested for blocking the road and the police arrested a young woman with a bullhorn … Security guards were hiding out in the bushes and just this kind of air of intimidation – police officers taking pictures of people up in their faces … They just grabbed the bullhorn and put it in the police car, and it was sorta like, to me, a little eye-opening that some of these giant companies actually, I think, have a lot of control over the authorities that we’re kind of under.

Indeed, Florida is not the only state where law enforcement authorities have used intimidating tactics against grassroots activists protesting Big Energy's polluting plans. In April, two nonviolent protesters were Tasered after locking themselves to bulldozers at the construction site for Duke Energy's massive new coal-fired power plant in western North Carolina, leading clean-air advocates with the Canary Coalition to call for an investigation of the police officers' actions. And in Colorado last year, an activist was arrested and jailed for simply carrying a "No New Coal Plants" sign inside the bar of a hotel that had just hosted a clean energy conference.

In an article published earlier this year by Orion magazine, writer Ted Nace described these grassroots activists working to stop the building of polluting power plants as a "swarm," using as an example the No New Coal Plants e-mail list founded by Mike Ewall of the Energy Justice Network. [Disclosure: I'm a member of that list.] Nace contrasted the "swarmers" -- who also like to call themselves "the Twigs" -- with large national environmental groups sometimes dubbed Big Green, noting that in many cases the grassroots activists have been more effective:

As fighting forces, swarms both preceded and eventually vanquished the orthogonal ranks of legionnaires that forged the Roman Empire. In a swarm, the emphasis is not on discipline, experience, and orderliness but rather on fighting spirit and individual initiative. Swarms are known for their tactical flexibility, sometimes using guerrilla-style harassment, as did the farmers who routed the British at Lexington and Concord; other times prevailing with overwhelming numbers in the manner of the Arapaho, Lakota, and Northern Cheyenne fighters who overran the U.S. Seventh Cavalry at the Little Bighorn.

While Tsolkas and his swarm has not yet succeeded in stopping FPL's plans for new polluting power plants, they have clearly gotten under the company's skin. In its filing against Tsolkas' intervention, FPL threw the proverbial book at him, arguing that:

1) he lacks standing because he's not an FPL customer,

2) there's no proof PBCEC members are FPL customers,

3) PBCEC is not registered as a business or nonprofit in Florida, and

4) Tsolkas is neither an attorney nor a "qualified representative."

PBCEC is currently collecting contributions to defray legal costs. To donate, visit the front page of their website.

(Photo of Panagioti Tsolkas being arrested during a protest against FPL's expansion plans is by Damon Higgins of the Palm Beach Post and was taken from the PBCEC Web site)

Labels: activism, energy policy, environment, Florida, Florida Power and Light, Panagioti Tsolkas

Earlier this year, the national board of the Sierra Club voted to suspend the organization's Florida chapter for four years. That meant the immediate dismissal of a 27-member executive committee elected by the state's membership -- and its replacement by a body appointed by the national board of the prominent environmental group.

The chapter's sin? Well, that depends on who you ask. The national body says the problem was in-fighting on the state board, which members dispute. They in turn charge that the real problem was that the Florida chapter took positions at odds with the national organization, including bucking its pro-biofuels agenda and opposing the national board's paid endorsement of a new line of home cleaning products from Clorox, a major corporate polluter.

Today's Grist magazine has a terrific overview of the controversy. The article by Emily Gertz captures the anger the group's former Florida leaders are feeling at their national overseers, as reflected in this quote from former state chapter secretary Pedro Monteiro:

"This suspension process is rife with the same problems that plagued the misguided invasion of Iraq and Panama, and the illegal holding of citizens in Guantanamo Bay," he wrote in his email, comparing the board's actions to "the crimes of the Bush Administration." He continued, "If there really are problems in the Florida Chapter, allow the voters to express their will and elect a new leadership at the next regularly held election." In a follow-up email, Monteiro called the chapter's new interim steering committee "a national staff-appointed junta."

Read the full story online here.

Labels: Clorox, environment, environmental politics, Florida, Sierra Club

Interest in alternative energy such as wind, geothermal, and solar is spreading beyond so-called "fringe" environmentalists and "tree huggers" to the business world. If there is any doubt, consider this: U.S. clean energy venture capital investments totaled $2.7 billion in 2007, a 70% increase over 2006. Worldwide investments in clean energy totaled $148 billion, a 60% increase over 2006. Alternative energy is going mainstream.

That's according a "2008 Clean Energy Trends" report by Clean Edge. According to their findings, growth in four key clean energy technology markets grew 40% from 2006, reaching $77 billion in 2007. They expect growth to exceed 300% over the next decade, reaching $254 billion.

You've probably heard all the candidates talking about "green-collar jobs." This isn't just election year rhetoric.

For example, an op-ed column in today's Nashville Tennessean says that Tennessee could gain $307 million in solar energy investments and hundreds of new jobs by the year 2015. The Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) says there are already more than 50 solar power related businesses in the state, including the Sharp Electronics solar panel manufacturing facility in Memphis which employs more than 200 workers and which, according to Sharp Electronics, has shipped more than 200 MW of solar array modules since 2002.

The Tennessean column urges support of HR5351, the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act recently passed by the House and now being considered in the Senate. This bill extends commercial solar power investment tax credits, which are set to expire at the end of 2008, for eight years. It also extends residential tax credits for one year and removes the $2,000 cap.

According to the SEIA, the U.S. could lose 116,000 jobs and $19 billion in solar and wind power investments if the tax credits aren't extended.

Some might argue that this amounts to corporate welfare for the clean-energy industry. It should be noted, however, that coal, nuclear, and hydro power are all heavily subsidized by taxpayers, directly in terms of capital construction costs, infrastructure, and government regulation, and indirectly in terms of the environmental costs. Also, the amounts involved are a fraction of what we already spend on "traditional" power generation, with the potential for huge long term environmental and economic benefits.

For example, the Clean Energy Trends report estimates the per-gigawatt construction costs for a typical nuclear plant at $2 to $6 billion (not to mention taking years to get online due to regulatory hurdles), versus $1.4 to $1.8 billion for wind, or $1.6 billion for geothermal. Solar is still more expensive at $5 to $10 billion (but in the same ballpark as nuclear), and unfortunately coal is still the cheapest (not counting the environmental costs) at $750 million to $1.4 billion.

But, as clean energy R&D investment increases and manufacturers ramp up production, costs are expected to come down and efficiencies are expected to go up, so federal support in terms of tax credits and R&D funding makes sense.

Both Clinton and Obama voted for the 2007 Clean Energy Bill. McCain abstained. That bill proposed these and other clean-energy incentives and would have paid for them by eliminating tax breaks for oil companies, shifting incentives away from polluters to clean energy producers.

These provisions were dropped from the Clean Energy Bill as passed, but are now back as part of HR5351. It will be interesting to see how our three presidential candidates act on these proposals in relation to their day jobs in the U.S. Senate.

Labels: energy policy, environment, renewable energy

Here's the latest Institute Index, as featured in the Institute's bi-weekly email newsletter, Facing South. Don't get Facing South yet? Sign up in the box in the upper right hand corner today!

If the Southeast were an independent nation, its rank among the world's largest emitters of carbon dioxide: 10th

Amount the Southeast spends per resident annually to promote energy efficiency: $1

Amount New England spends: $12

Average annual energy bills for newly constructed, affordable homes in one Atlanta community: $1,200

Increase in total construction costs required to cut those bills by $400 a year: $500

Proportion of water in drought-afflicted Georgia used for cooling power plants: more than half

Total electricity sales of eight Southeastern utilities: 470,000 gigawatt-hours

Amount of renewable generation those eight utilities have access to: over 106,000 gigawatt-hours

Amount the Tennessee Valley Authority committed to invest in energy efficiency at its August 2007 board meeting: $22 million

What that represents per capita: $2.53

Utilities' national average per capita spending for energy efficiency in 2004: $4.93

Annual investment TVA could make if it spent 1 percent of revenues on energy efficiency: $97 million

Estimated number of jobs that a renewable energy standard would create in Tennessee: 40,000

Cost to N.C.-based Duke Energy for its proposed Save-a-Watt efficiency program: 2 cents/kilowatt-hour

Amount Duke Energy would charge its customers for the program: 5.2 cents/kilowatt-hour

Save-a-Watt's rank among the costliest utility efficiency programs for consumers: 1

Labels: energy policy, environment, facing south, institute index

Citing a recent federal court ruling, 18 environmental groups have called on the North Carolina Division of Air Quality to reopen the pollution permit it granted last month for Duke Energy's proposed new coal-burning unit at its Cliffside power plant in the western part of the state. In a letter submitted to DAQ, the groups charge that the permit is illegal under the Clean Air Act because it fails to require the toughest controls available for mercury, a potent neurotoxin released from burning coal.

"North Carolina has issued an illegal permit that violates the Clean Air Act and a federal court ruling," said Gudrun Thompson, attorney with the nonprofit Southern Environmental Law Center, which submitted the letter to DAQ. "The Division of Air Quality must now go back and do its homework by first identifying the highest achievable level of control for this hazardous pollutant and then requiring Duke to implement it."

The other signatories include Environment North Carolina, Environmental Defense, National Parks Conservation Association, Natural Resources Defense Council, N.C. Waste Awareness and Reduction Network, Sierra Club's N.C. chapter, Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, Cape Fear Riverkeeper, Catawba Riverkeeper, Lower Neuse Riverkeeper, New Riverkeeper, Pamlico-Tar Riverkeeper, Upper Neuse Riverkeeper, Watauga Riverkeeper, Waccamaw Riverkeeper, Yadkin Riverkeeper, and Cape Fear Coastkeeper.

The permit issued by DAQ would allow Duke's plant to emit mercury at a rate 10 times higher than the Clean Air Act allows. In addition, the permit fails to require or even analyze maximum pollution controls for 66 other hazardous air pollutants emitted by coal-fired power plants, including hydrochloric acid, arsenic, dioxins, and heavy metals other than mercury.

(Photo of Cliffside Steam Station from Duke Energy's Web site)

Labels: coal, Duke Energy, energy policy, environment, north carolina, Southern Environmental Law Center

The nation's two largest religious denominations have taken significant steps to promote a healthier environment.

A group of more than 40 Southern Baptist leaders have signed a declaration calling for action on climate change. Released today, the declaration marks a major departure from the resolution passed last year by the Southern Baptist Convention questioning whether human activity significantly contributes to global warming. The SBC is the nation's second-largest denomination after the Roman Catholic Church.

The SBC's current president, Rev. Frank Page, signed the declaration, as did past presidents Jack Graham and James Merritt. The document calls on Baptist churches to promote creation care, and it calls on individual Baptists to give "serious consideration" to responsible policies addressing the climate problem:

We believe our current denominational engagement with these issues have often been too timid, failing to produce a unified moral voice. Our cautious response to these issues in the face of mounting evidence may be seen by the world as uncaring, reckless and ill-informed. We can do better. To abandon these issues to the secular world is to shirk from our responsibility to be salt and light. The time for timidity regarding God’s creation is no more.

And in a newspaper interview published this past weekend, a top Vatican official was asked about "new sins" and listed "ecological offenses" among modern evils. Also on the list were genetic manipulation, drug trafficking, and social and economic injustices.

The statement from Archbishop Gianfranco Girotti follows Pope Benedict's earlier declaration that issues such as climate change and care of water resources "are matters of grave importance for the entire human family."

Labels: Catholic Church, climate, environment, environmental justice, Southern Baptist Convention

Everyone says they're for the environment these days -- but among those who represent you in Washington, who votes like they talk?

The League of Conservation Voters, which has been rating lawmakers for years, now has a neat online tool for looking at the ratings of all members of Congress, both House and Senate. See how your elected officials rate here.

The map to the right shows the overall regional picture. Congress-folk in the coastal West and Northeast have the strongest environmental records; those in the South and Plains West have the worst.

Given that the regions with the worst environmental records are also the fastest-growing regions in the country -- and the regions with the fastest-growing political clout -- it would follow that these are the areas where national environmental groups should be targeting most of their political and organizing resources, if they want to be successful.

Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the case.

Labels: environment, environmental health, leave of conservation voters, Southern Politics

In our ongoing Southern drought coverage, you may recall us mentioning what at the time seemed like nothing more than a historical curiosity regarding the Tennessee border. It seems the team sent out in 1818 to survey the border missed the 35th parallel by about a mile because of substandard equipment and charts, putting a southern portion the Tennessee River that would have been in Georgia entirely in Tennessee.

Now, a genuine border dispute has erupted. Yesterday, the Georgia state legislature passed a resolution establishing a boundary commission to resurvey the border and move it one mile north so Georgia, which is running out of water in the Atlanta area, could tap the Tennessee River.

The bill was introduced in the Senate to the refrain of Senators singing "This land is my land, this land is your land," where it passed unanimously. The sponsor of the House bill said Georgia is prepared to go to court if Tennessee doesn't comply.

If the measure fails in court, Georgia could resort to drilling into the Tennessee River aquifer near the Georgia-Tennessee border. According to the Atlanta Business Chronicle, customers for Tennessee River water are already being lined up in the metro Atlanta area.

State officials in Tennessee are not amused.

From the Chattanooga Times Free Press

"I think they're embarrassing themselves, and I think it’s a waste of taxpayers’ money to have them going into session and doing such silly things on taxpayers’ time," said Rep. Gerald McCormick, R-Chattanooga, chairman of the Hamilton County legislative delegation.

He called "idiotic" and "crazy," the proposal that seeks to take a mile-wide strip of southern Tennessee, including a chunks of Chattanooga and East Ridge.

"I don't think we'll do anything but ignore them and laugh at them," Rep. McCormick said about a Tennessee response.

He is also quoted by WSMV Nashville:

Tennessee Rep. Gerald McCormick, a Chattanooga Republican, called the resolution "silliest thing I've ever seen any group of Republicans do."

"I'm embarrassed that they would embarrass the party like that," he said. "They're idiots."

The Associated Press quotes a spokesperson for Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen:

But trying to change the state lines now is "an absurd approach," said Will Pinkston, a senior adviser to Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen.

"It's unfortunate that Georgia didn't plan accordingly for growth over the past couple of decades, and now is trying to rewrite 200 years of history to address their mistakes," Pinkston said.

"Under no circumstances will Gov. Bredesen turn over Tennessee's water to Georgia," he said.

Tennessee State Senator Andy Berke is quoted as saying "Georgia needs to be looking at responsible solutions for how to deal with water and land-use planning, rather than irresponsible land grabs." The article notes that parts of Memphis, Tennessee's largest city, would also suddenly be in Mississippi, giving thousands of residents new addresses.

In a spirit of cooperation, however, Tennessee officials offered a couple of weeks ago to settle the matter by way of alternative dispute resolution, suggesting "a winner-take-all wrestling match or football game."

UPDATE: WPLN: Tennessee Legislature To Defend Border With Its Own Resolution

"The principle of adverse possession applies to these boundary disputes between states, not just private parties. In even starker laymans’ terms, if you fenced it, and thought it was yours, it doesn’t matter what the deed says, or what the act says, It’s yours."

Fincher said the issue of water rights – as opposed to the boundary lines – is different in the east than it is in the water-parched west.

"Since we’re east of the Mississippi, basic water rights are the classic English water rights, the riparian water rights, and what that means is, if you live next to the stream you can use it."

This might actually get interesting.

UPDATE: The New York Times takes notice:

WHEREAS, Georgia lawmakers on Wednesday passed a resolution to restore the boundary line to its appropriate latitude, notwithstanding skepticism all around and outright insults from their neighbors to the north.

And WHEREAS the concept of a war between states is not foreign to these parts,

BE IT OBSERVED that the Georgia legislature appears to be serious.

Labels: drought, environment, water rights

A federal appeals court on Friday decided that an Environmental Protection Agency rule that left coal- and oil-fired power plants off the hook for tough mercury controls violated the Clean Air Act. The decision cheered opponents of Duke Energy's planned Cliffside power plant in western North Carolina who were recently disappointed by the state's decision to permit the facility.

The ruling [PDF] by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals invalidates EPA's so-called "Clean Air Mercury Rule," which would have allowed dangerously high levels of mercury pollution to be emitted by some coal-fired power plants under a pollution cap-and-trade program. The court found that EPA illegally removed power plants from the most protective requirements of the Clean Air Act simply because it believed it had the authority to do so, a move that led the court to comment:

"This explanation deploys the logic of the Queen of Hearts."

As a consequence of the decision, air permits for new coal plants such as Cliffside will have to be based on a case-by-case analysis of the best available technology for controlling mercury and other hazardous pollution. Last month, the Southern Environmental Law Center -- which sued EPA over the mercury cap-and-trade rule on behalf of several public-health organizations -- notified North Carolina regulators about the court's expected decision and called on them to consider the tougher mercury regulations when developing its final permit, advice the state Division of Air Quality failed to heed.

N.C. Waste Awareness and Reduction Network Director Jim Warren (who last week debated Duke Energy executive Tom Williams on North Carolina Public Radio) points out that DAQ's permit for Cliffside doesn't require analysis of what's known as "maximum available control technology" (MACT) for mercury and doesn't require Duke Energy to install mercury-specific pollution control equipment, noting:

The D.C. Circuit's ruling means that DAQ must rescind the final Cliffside air permit, go back to the drawing board to conduct a case-specific MACT analysis, and issue a revised draft permit for public comment before finalizing a new permit.

Labels: coal, environment, regulatory oversight

In response to a recent study by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration that found widespread perchlorate contamination of food and beverages, environmental health advocates are calling on the federal government to set a strict tap-water safety standard for the toxic chemical, which is used in the manufacturing and firing of rockets and missiles.

The problem of environmental perchlorate contamination is particularly pressing for young children, who eat and drink relatively more food and water for their size compared to adults. According to an analysis by the Environmental Working Group, levels of perchlorate in tap water even as low as 4 parts per billion (ppb) will cause the average two-year-old to exceed the Environmental Protection Agency's safe exposure level. That's why EWG is calling for tight limits on the contaminant, which can be controlled through filtration and cleanup of spills.

"Every final or proposed water standard for perchlorate fails to provide adequate protection for children," Dr. Anila Jacob, an EWG senior scientist, said in a statement. "The EPA has issued a clean up standard of 24 ppb, nowhere near a level protective of children."

Besides being at risk for higher exposures, children are especially sensitive to perchlorate's effects. The chemical can block the thyroid gland's access to iodine and decrease production of hormones necessary for maintaining normal growth and brain development in children.

A May 2005 study [PDF] by the U.S. Government Accountability Office found widespread perchlorate contamination across the United States, including the South. According to the GAO, there are seven facilities and sites affected by perchlorate contamination in Alabama, four in Arkansas, six in Florida, three in Georgia, two in Louisiana, one in Mississippi, seven in North Carolina, four in South Carolina, two in Tennessee, four in Virginia, one in West Virginia -- and a whopping 118 in Texas, where GAO found more contaminated sites than any other state.

While many of the perchlorate-contaminated sites are on or near military installations, they also include municipal water systems in densely populated areas. For example, drinking water from the the city of Levelland in Hockley County, Texas is contaminated with perchlorate at levels of 123 ppb, while drinking water from the Atlantic Beach municipal system in Duval County, Fla. contains 200 ppb.

Labels: environment, public health

An administrative law judge has upheld Georgia's decision to issue an air pollution permit for Dynegy's proposed coal-burning power plant in Early County. But environmental attorneys say they will appeal, charging that the judge ignored evidence that the company will not adequately restrict pollution from the Longleaf plant that threatens human health and crops critical to the local economy.

"This is the first coal-fired power permit to be approved in Georgia in over 20 years but with this court's ruling, I fear it will not be the last," says Justine Thompson, executive director of GreenLaw, which is leading the legal fight against the plant. "As neighboring states stand up against coal plants, Georgia's acquiescence will make us a target for new coal-fired power plant proposals. Building this plant as currently designed will lock this state into dirty air for the life of the plant, at least 50 or more years."

Georgia's decision comes as plans for other coal-fired projects across the United States have been canceled or delayed due to rising construction costs and concerns about greenhouse gas emissions. James Hansen, a scientist who runs NASA's Goddard Space Center, has said he believes the government will be forced to regulate coal plants out of existence in the near future due to climate concerns.

During the hearing for Dynegy's proposed plant, GreenLaw attorney George Hays pointed out that the state Environmental Protection Division staff could not explain how permit limits for harmful soot and smog had been reached and said that state employees adopted conclusions proposed by Dynegy verbatim and without independent verification. The Houston-based Dynegy has proposed building more new coal-fired power plants than any other U.S. company.

Environmental advocates, health care providers and patient groups oppose the plant, and the Medical Association of Georgia issued a resolution opposing the building of any new coal-fired plants in the state, which already has 10 such facilities. The proposed Dynegy plant would emit 9 million tons of carbon dioxide pollution annually and 4,700 tons of sulfur dioxide. The plant's particulate emissions would violate the Environmental Protection Agency's standards for safe air in the community where the plant is located, and the facility would draw more than 20 million gallons of water per day from the Chattahoochee River, which has already been impacted by the region's severe ongoing drought.

Early County -- where African Americans make up almost half of the population and more than a quarter of the population lives in poverty -- already faces a serious pollution problem from Great Southern Paper Co.'s papermill. According to EPA's Toxic Release Inventory, the mill released more than 2 million pounds of toxic chemicals to the air in 2005 alone, including 240 pounds of lead, 47 pounds of mercury -- both potent neurotoxins -- and more than 2,200 pounds of benzene, a known carcinogen. Dynegy's plant would dramatically increase the local community's toxic burden.

For more details on the proposed plant's impact on environmental justice, see the comments [PDF] submitted to state regulators by the Georgia Center for Law in the Public Interest, which has since changed its name to GreenLaw. For a copy of the judge's ruling, click here [PDF]. And for more on the fight against Georgia's coal plants, visit www.nonewcoal.org.

Labels: coal, energy policy, environment, Georgia, global warming

In recent weeks the world has witnessed images of enormous heaps of household trash piled up on the streets of Naples, Italy after the city ran out of places to put it.

Apparently that's not the Italians' only waste disposal problem.

Italy also lacks a place to dispose of its radioactive waste -- and it's looking for answers in the U.S. South. The (Columbia, S.C.) State reports that Energy Solutions of Utah is seeking federal permission to import up to 20,000 tons -- that's a million cubic feet -- of so-called "low-level" radioactive waste from Italy through the ports of Charleston and New Orleans for disposal in the United States. The plan involves recycling most of the waste in Tennessee, with the rest to be buried in Utah.

But some environmentalists in South Carolina worry that the toxic stuff could end up in the state's Barnwell County nuclear waste dump run by Energy Solutions. However, the company says it won't bury the waste at that site, which is scheduled to close this summer. The Barnwell landfill -- the only facility in the nation that takes the most toxic kinds of low-level waste – has leaked and is contaminating local groundwater supplies.

South Carolina State Sen. Joel Lourie (D-Richland) thinks Italy should keep its nuclear waste:

"Do we want to promote that kind of industry in America, where we accept everyone else's nuclear waste, or should we encourage other countries to deal with it on their own soil?" Lourie said.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is currently considering Energy Solutions' request, but critics of the disposal plan say Congress should take up the matter of importing other countries' nuclear waste.

Labels: environment, louisiana, radioactive waste, South Carolina, Tennessee

The controversial "Road to Nowhere" is officially not going to be built. An environmental impact study recommendation in October led the way for Congress to appropriate money for a $6 million "down payment" on a $52 million cash settlement with the citizens of Swain Co., who were promised a new road when construction of Fontana Dam flooded an existing road in 1943.

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) and Rep. Heath Shuler (D-NC), who have long opposed the road, issued a joint press release:

U.S. Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN) and U.S. Representative Heath Shuler (D-NC) today announced that they have secured $6 million in the Fiscal Year 2008 Omnibus appropriations bill to begin a settlement between Swain County and the federal government for the North Shore Road – also known as the “Road to Nowhere” – through the Great Smoky Mountain National Park. The $6 million will be appropriated to the National Park Service to hold for use in the eventual settlement with Swain County.

The National Park Service recommended a monetary settlement to Swain County as the preferred alternative to the construction of the North Shore Road in their Final Environmental Impact Study (FEIS) in October.

"For sixty-four years the issue of the North Shore Road has divided communities and families. This reserved funding, along with the Park Service’s final EIS, shows that we have finally reached the end of this long journey," said Rep. Shuler. "A full settlement is a commonsense solution that will protect the integrity of the Great Smoky Mountain National Park, while also providing Swain County the resources it needs to invest in job creation and school improvement."

"It’s about time that we put a stop to the Road to Nowhere," said Alexander. "For decades we’ve been working for the right solution for the taxpayers of America, the people of Swain County, and those who love the Great Smoky Mountains. I’m glad this day has finally come."

This is a great win for conservationists and the GSMNP. The Sierra Club says it would be an environmental disaster:

Building a 34-mile road through the heart of the Smokies would forever alter the Appalachian backcountry and greatly impair water quality, air quality and wildlife in the area. Moreover, the road would cost taxpayers upwards of $600 million to build!

Residents in the area, like former residents of all the farms and homes and towns flooded by TVA reservoirs, had their lives disrupted and have been waiting a long time for a resolution.

For decades, the National Park Service has provided a ferry service to take residents across Fontana Lake to old family cemeteries and home sites. Supporters of the road argue that it would bring tourism and jobs to Swain County. The $52 million settlement, officially supported by the Swain Co. government, will give them at least some compensation.

Labels: environment, natural resources, north carolina

Today President Bush signed into law an energy bill that increases efficiency standards for vehicles, phases out incandescent light bulbs, and for the first time places limits on the amount of water that can be used by new washing machines and dishwashers. In a statement, Bush said the measure

...represents a major step forward in expanding the production of renewable fuels, reducing our dependence on oil, and confronting global climate change. It will increase our energy security, expand the production of renewable fuels, and make America stronger, safer, and cleaner for future generations.

However, clean-energy advocates point to serious problems with the final version. Faced with threats of a White House veto, the Senate dropped a provision that rolled back $13.5 billion in tax breaks to oil companies, which would have raised revenue for renewable energy investments. It also dropped a provision creating a federal renewable energy standard.

In addition, the law mandates an almost fivefold increase in the production of ethanol by 2022 -- from 7.5 billion gallons to 36 billion gallons. That means there will be more corn grown in the Midwest, which in turns means more nitrogen-based fertilizer running off fields, pouring into the Mississippi River and eventually flowing into the Gulf, where it will enlarge the "dead zone" -- a 7,900-square-mile area off the coast of Louisiana and Texas so depleted of oxygen that no fish, crabs or shrimp can survive.

As the Associated Press reported earlier this week, some researchers worry that the booming demand for corn will result in the very rapid expansion of the dead zone:

"We might be coming close to a tipping point," said Matt Rota, director of the water resources program for the New Orleans-based Gulf Restoration Network, an environmental group. "The ecosystem might change or collapse as opposed to being just impacted."

Beside threatening species diversity in the Gulf, the dead zone is also a threat to the region's $2.8 billion commercial and recreational fishing industry. GRN points out that the amount of brown shrimp caught declines in years when the dead zone is largest, forcing shrimpers to look elsewhere for their catch.

Other parts of the country will also feel the impact from expanded ethanol production, says Mike Ewall with the Pennsylvania-based Energy Justice Network:

Many hundreds of additional communities are now going to become targets for ethanol biorefineries, including "advanced" biofuels, which will include even more use of biotechnology and which will clear our forests and crop lands to liquidate them to fuel vehicles. Even more troubling is that much of this will create a demand to try to turn trash, sewage sludge and other contaminated waste streams into liquid fuels. We're already busy enough trying to help communities fight these things and our work is going to get FAR bigger. The more we succeed in stopping these insane "biofuel" schemes in the U.S., the more we'll end up importing it and contributing to deforestation and global hunger in other countries.

(In the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration photo above, the reds and oranges represent low oxygen concentrations.)

Labels: energy policy, environment

The U.S. Department of Energy published a public notice in local newspapers today to "inform the public of DOE enforceable requirements for protection of human health and the environment from past releases of contaminants within the Melton Valley portion of the Oak Ridge Reservation located in Roane County, Tennessee."

According to the notice, the "predominant contaminants of concern that could potentially cause a threat" are:

• in soil: cesium-137, strontium-90, cobalt-60, curium-244

• in surface water: tritium, strontium-90

• in sediment: cesium-137, strontium-90, cobalt-60, curium-244, PCBs

• in groundwater: tritium, strontium-90

A map similar to the one above (click for a larger view) was included in the public notice. It is a graphic illustration of how a toxic, radioactive plume spread from ORNL operating and waste storage/dumping sites to contaminate one of the most toxic EPA Supersites in the country.

(The above map was submitted to the DOE by a site specific cleanup committee as part of a recommendation on what should be included in the public notice. The recommendation was made in Dec. of 2006 after months of study and meetings. The DOE responded in March of 2007 that they generally agreed, and the notice was finally published in Dec. 2007 with some changes.)

The area at the top right of the map is the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. The general area of the map is the Melton Valley and the White Oak Creek embayment, which empties in to the Clinch River on the lower left and eventually into the Watts Bar reservoir on the Tennessee River.

The area marked in yellow is designated as a "Waste Management Area" (renamed "Waste Disposal Areas" in the DOE public notice), where radioactive and other toxic waste is left in place. These areas are restricted from any use other than waste disposal and the land use plan requires protection of maintenance workers entering the area. It's not clear from the map included in the public notice, but it appears this area was reduced in size to only include the actual waste disposal areas, which are indicated on the above map in gray.

The areas marked in green are designated as "Industrial Use Areas" that are "suitable for industrial use" with restrictions that prohibit excavation and ground penetration of more than two feet.

The area marked in purple is designated as a "Surface Water and Floodplain Area", with restrictions to protect "hypothetical recreational users."

Restrictions in all areas prohibit access or use of groundwater.

The public notice advises that "Because land use on Melton Valley is restricted due to the continuing presence of hazardous substances at levels that do not allow for unrestricted use, the Record of Decision [ed. note: Melton Valley Land Use Controls Implementation Plan ROD DOE/OR/01-1977&D6], requires production of Notations on Ownership Record (Deed Restrictions) and Property Record Notices to define the restricted areas." The ROD lays out requirements for the DOE to report to the Roane County Register of Deeds all boundaries and restrictions, and includes other controls such as signs, surveillance patrols, and permit programs.

The overall area is designated as an EPA Superfund site and cleanup work has been ongoing for decades. EPA information on the site is here.

Reading the long list of cleanup work, or in some cases sites simply abandoned as being too toxic to clean up, is scary. It's a reminder that, fifty years ago, our top nuclear scientists and engineers thought their toxic radioactive waste storage and disposal plans were safe and sound. What will America be saying thirty, forty, or fifty years from now about nuclear waste disposal decisions being made today, which are making "disposal" and "cleanup" largely a shell game?

Labels: environment, nuclear power

The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Public Health Association, the American Nurses Association and Physicians for Social Responsibility are going to court today to present their legal challenge to the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Air Mercury Rule -- which despite its name actually exempts power plants from tough Clean Air Act requirements to control the harmful neurotoxin.

The groups -- which together represent more than 300,000 health professionals -- are being represented by the Southern Environmental Law Center. They are joining attorneys general from 14 states (though none in the South), a dozen national environmental groups and several Indian tribes that are also challenging the rule, which was released in May 2005.

"This challenge represents unprecedented legal action by these public health groups, an indication of how severe doctors, nurses and pediatricians and other health workers know the threat of mercury emissions to be," says SELC attorney John Suttles. "With this rule, the EPA not only ignored the requirements of the Clean Air Act, it also ignored