Switchboard, from NRDC

Best & worst cities for convenient public parks, and why it matters

2013-06-19T13:00:14Z

Kaid Benfield, Director, Sustainable Communities, Washington, DC

In Minneapolis, the Trust for Public Land (TPL)’s highest-rated big city for public parks, 95 percent of residents (including roughly the same portion of low-income residents) live within a ten-minute walk of a city park. But in Charlotte, the organization’s lowest-rated big city, that number drops to only 26 percent. In Albuquerque, 81 percent of residents live within walking distance of a city park; in San Antonio, only 32 percent do.

These numbers come by way of TPL’s 2012 City Park Facts and its interactive ParkScore index. I’ve been hoping for a while that some organization would perform this kind of analysis, difficult though it must be, because gross numbers of park acreage and park spending don’t really tell us much about how city parks affect people. Even these access numbers don’t get to quality, of course, but it’s a great start. While I love large, signature parks – such as New York’s Central Park, San Francisco’s Golden Gate Park, or Washington’s Rock Creek Park – I love neighborhood parks even more. For me, it’s not about the amount of park land as much as it is about the distribution.

Here are seven cities with especially poor city park access, according to TPL. In each case, over 60 percent of residents do not have walkable access to a city park:

Charlotte
Jacksonville
Louisville
San Antonio
Indianapolis
Fresno
Nashville

By contrast, here are eight cities with outstanding access to public parks, each with one or more parks within walking distance of 90 percent or more of its residents:

San Francisco
Boston
Washington
New York
Minneapolis
Philadelphia
Seattle
Chicago

These cities have large parks, but also neighborhood-scaled parks distributed throughout the city, as the accompanying map of parks in Boston demonstrates.

The precise numbers in the two TPL reports differ slightly. ParkScore, for example, looks at the top 50 US cities by population; City Park Facts looks at the top 40. (Minneapolis, TPL’s top-rated city in ParkScore based on a number of factors including, in addition to park access, measures of park size and investment, isn’t rated for park access in City Park Facts.) But the numbers and rankings are generally consistent between the two databases.

As we become more urban as a nation, and many of our neighborhoods and suburbs become denser, access to outdoor facilities and nature becomes more important. Harvard biologist Edward O. Wilson is credited with coining the term biophilia, “the innately emotional affiliation of human beings to other living organisms.” Indeed, for our ancestors a keen awareness of the natural environment was essential to survival. When we are deprived of nature, we lose a basic aspect of humanity.

It is not surprising that all sorts of research backs this up. An academically rigorous review of 86 peer-reviewed studies published since 2000, conducted by Danish researchers for the International Federation of Parks and Recreation Administration, was published in January of this year. It found an immense range of correlations between nature and public health, from reduced headaches to longevity:

“Nature and green spaces contribute directly to public health by reducing stress and mental disorders, increasing the effect of physical activity, reducing health inequalities, and increasing perception of life quality and self-reported general health. Indirect health effects are conveyed by providing arenas and opportunities for physical activity, increasing satisfaction of living environment and social interactions, and by different modes of recreation . . .

“The direct health benefits for which we found evidence on positive effects included psychological wellbeing, reduced obesity, reduced stress, self-perceived health, reduced headache, better mental health, stroke mortality, concentration capacity, quality of life, reduced Attention Disorder Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) –symptoms, reduced cardiovascular symptoms and reduced mortality for respiratory disorders, reduced health complaints, overall mortality, longevity, birth weight and gestational age in low socioeconomic population, post-disaster recovery, and reduced cortisol.” [Citations omitted.]

The evidence for positive impacts of urban parks on physical activity was highlighted as “strong,” with the academically established evidence in support of other effects found to be at least “moderate.” (Conversely, when a correlation between parks and nature was insufficiently established in the literature, as with the effects on lung cancer or diabetes, the authors said so.)

Another large study, reported in a monograph published by the National Recreation and Parks Association in 2010 found a direct correlation between health effects and proximity of parks:

“Scientists in the Netherlands examined the prevalence of anxiety disorders in more than 345,000 residents and found that people who lived in residential areas with the least green spaces had a 44 percent higher rate of physician-diagnosed anxiety disorders than people who lived in the greenest residential areas. The effect was strongest among those most likely to spend their time near home, including children and those with low levels of education and income.

“Time spent in the lushness of green environments also reduces sadness and depression. In the Dutch study, the prevalence of physician-diagnosed depression was 33 percent higher in the residential areas with the fewest green spaces, compared to the neighborhoods with the most.”

The NRPA report even cites studies finding lower levels of aggression, violence and crime in Chicago housing projects with views of vegetation than in those without.

People intuitively appreciate these benefits and, as a result, are willing to pay a significant premium for living near nature. According to a 2006 report published by TPL, a review of 25 studies investigating whether parks and open space contributed to values of neighboring properties found increased value in 20 of the studies. Those benefits accrue to the municipalities as well:

“The higher value of these homes means that their owners pay higher property taxes. In some instances, the additional property taxes are sufficient to pay the annual debt charges on the bonds used to finance the park’s acquisition and development. ‘In these cases, the park is obtained at no long-term cost to the jurisdiction,’ [Texas A&M professor John] Crompton writes.”

The TPL report cites corroborating evidence from the University of Southern California, finding that investment in a pocket park in a dense urban neighborhood would pay for itself in 15 years as a result of increased tax revenues. Indeed, parks can help revitalize distressed neighborhoods.

In short, intuition supports city parks and so does evidence.

I sometimes get weary of city or state rankings, which can be sort of gimmicky. Close scrutiny can almost always find details in the data that call some of the comparisons into question. But, in the case of TPL’s study of park proximity, the difference between, say, Louisville (32 percent of residents within walking distance of a city park) and Boston (97 percent of residents within walking distance of a city park) is immense. Adjust the numbers up or down and we’re still talking about one city with much better access to parks than another. If rankings get people talking about the issue, and park proximity becomes a stronger factor in planning and investment, that’s a good thing.

Related posts:

Nashville's new hypergreen riverfront park (April 27, 2012)
Turning abandoned and obsolete properties into "park-oriented development" (April 20, 2012)
5 graphs and 4 photos tell the story on obesity, diabetes & walking (March 28, 2012)
The good news: we're getting more city parks. The bad news: we have less money to take care of them. (December 13, 2011)
How pocket parks may make cities safer, more healthy (November 23, 2011)
Parks for people, and people for parks (April 28, 2011)
How parks can help revitalize distressed neighborhoods (March 16, 2011)
Interested in how to think about city parks? Get this book (May 7, 2010)
Using urban density to support parks, and vice versa (March 9, 2010)

Move your cursor over the images for credit information.

Kaid Benfield writes about community, development, and the environment on Switchboard and in the national media. For more posts, see his blog's home page. Please also visit NRDC’s sustainable communities video channels.

Livestock industry bullying on Meatless Mondays campaign doesn't change facts--or consumer trends.

2013-06-19T01:19:53Z

Sasha Lyutse, Policy Analyst, New York

The Meatless Mondays campaign encourages consumers to skip meat one day a week in favor of plant-based foods, and highlights how this simple action can help improve their health and reduce the environmental impacts of their diets. Seems small, but the collective impacts are potentially anything but. According to estimates by the Humane Society of the United States, if every American embraced Meatless Mondays, we would need to raise 1.4 billion fewer farm animals. That translates into a lot fewer toxic chemicals, reduced climate pollution, healthier soils and waterways, and a lot less animal cruelty.

But when a food company decided to implement the initiative in House of Representative cafeterias this month, the conventional livestock industry was quick to pounce—in highly hyperbolic fashion.

In a letter to the House Administration Committee, the euphemistically named “Farm Animal Welfare Coalition” called Meatless Mondays “an acknowledged tool of animal rights and environmental organizations who seek to publicly denigrate U.S. livestock and poultry production.” The group asked the Committee to inform the company that "it must cease immediately" any activity promoting Meatless Mondays. Unfortunately, the effort now appears dead in its tracks.

Last year, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) was similarly pressured into removing language promoting Meatless Mondays from a sustainability newsletter to employees after facing pressure from the National Cattleman’s Beef Association, which I discussed here. That’s right. Not a press release or any kind of policy document. An internal employee newsletter suggesting that one way to reduce their environmental impact while dining at their office cafeteria is to skip meat once a week.

This kind of bullying—and swift caving on the part of the House Committee—is shameless for sure. But it also suggests the conventional livestock industry knows it has something to worry about when it comes to American consumers. Despite this disappointing episode, public trends speak for themselves.

Meatless Mondays have become a cultural force, and more and more Americans are significantly cutting their meat consumption for their health, as well as a greater awareness of the environmental benefits of switching to plant-based options. On Mondays, it’s not uncommon for the hashtag #MeatlessMondays to be “trending” on Twitter, which means it’s one of the topics being tweeted about most often on that day. Prominent Americans from Bill Gates to Ellen DeGeneres to Oprah Winfrey, Bill Clinton, and even Mike Tyson have embraced a reduced or no meat diet. Entire school districts are adopting Meatless Mondays in their cafeterias.

But while overall meat consumption is down (USDA data indicates that the average American will consume 12.2% less meat and poultry overall in 2012 than they did in 2007), the choices Americans are making when they do choose to eat meat are also changing. While sales of conventional meat are flat or declining, sales of healthier, more sustainably produced meats are up.

For reasons that include personal health, environmental concerns, animal welfare, taste, and quality, many consumers are seeking alternatives to conventional meat products, such as meat and poultry raised without reliance on antibiotics. And this isn’t going unnoticed. Mainstream consumer brands, restaurants, and food retailers like Applegate, Chipotle, Fresh Direct, and Panera Bread have responded to growing consumer demand and are successfully marketing and selling hundreds of millions of pounds of meat and poultry raised without antibiotics to customers across the country each year.

For example, while sales of chicken, turkey, pork, and beef raised without antibiotics remain a small segment of the market—accounting for just about 2% of total meal sales—demand is growing fast. By some estimates sales are up 25% in the past three years. USDA Certified Organic meats, which are just one segment of the no-antibiotics meat and poultry market, were the fastest growing sector of the $31 billion organic foods industry in 2011.

Reduced overall demand for meat coupled with rising demand for more sustainably produced meat is good news. Not just for our health but for the health of the environment.

The impacts of the conventional meat industry are notorious. Livestock production is in many ways the single most damaging sector of agriculture. It’s not only responsible for tremendous habitat degradation and biodiversity loss, erosion and desertification, air and climate pollution, but it is also the largest and least regulated source of water pollution in the nation.

Within the dominant production model, massive numbers of chickens, pigs and cows are confined in giant feedlots—often called factory farms—where they are routinely fed antibiotics to made them grow faster and to compensate for dirty, crowded and stressful conditions. These conditions create a breeding ground for antibiotic resistance bacteria, which escape in the air, water, on workers and the meat itself, getting into our environment and making people very sick. The public health and medical community has warned that this practice is endangering human health by contributing to the rise of antibiotic resistance in humans and putting the essential medicines we rely on at risk.

Swapping out meat for any number of lower-impact forms of protein just one day per week is one of the most impactful things concerned individuals can do to reduce their environmental “foodprints”. Far from some radical endeavor seeking to denigrate American meat and poultry producers, this simple action can also free consumers up to choose healthier and more sustainably-produced meat products when they do choose to eat meat.

Every day, farmers across the country are showing that we can produce meat in ways that are healthier for our families, our planet, and animals. And every week, concerned citizens and consumers across the country are voting with their wallets, simultaneously making Meatless Mondays increasingly mainstream and helping to bring an abundance of alternative meat and poultry products into the marketplace.

More and more, the bullies can’t beat the buyers.

Reviving U.S.-India Cooperation on Climate Change During Secretary Kerry's Visit to New Delhi

2013-06-19T00:31:51Z

Anjali Jaiswal, Senior Attorney, San Francisco

Secretary of State John Kerry heads to New Delhi next week. The visit is a key opportunity for Secretary Kerry to reinvigorate U.S.-India cooperation on climate change and to continue to make progress under the Green Partnership, the landmark clean energy and climate change agreement forged by President Obama and Prime Minister Singh in 2009.

Since the Green Partnership was signed, the United States and India have made significant progress in creating the foundation for cooperative research, development, and policy endeavors on climate change and clean energy. For example, both U.S. government agencies and businesses played a major role in growing India’s solar energy market, which is now well over 1 gigawatt of installed solar energy. To build on this progress, Secretary Kerry should re-emphasize that the United States recognizes the importance of India’s goal to provide energy access to all, from its booming cities to remote rural areas, through clean energy.

One issue to watch for during these meetings is whether Secretary Kerry and Indian leaders will make progress on phasing down hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), the potent heat-trapping chemicals used as refrigerants in both room and automobile air conditioners. With a rapidly growing economy, air conditioning use in India is on the rise and this increase is contributing to global warming through leakage of HFCs, escalated fuel consumption for vehicles, and an upsurge in electricity consumption for buildings. Room air conditioning is already responsible for recent peak-load electricity blackouts.

In advance of Secretary Kerry’s meetings, NRDC President Frances Beinecke sent a letter highlighting three priority areas for the U.S.-India Strategic Dialogue:

Deepen Cooperation to Grow Solar Energy Markets. India’s solar market is experiencing rapid growth and still has a long way to go to meet the National Solar Mission’s goal of 20 GW of grid-connected solar energy by 2022. As part of the dialogue process, the United States should work with the Ministry of External Affairs, Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (MNRE), and the Planning Commission to deepen Indian engagement by using a “whole of government” approach. For financing, the dialogue should share strategies in developing innovative financing models to continue investment in India’s solar market through OPIC, EX-IM, and other channels.
Accelerate Scaling of Energy Efficiency and Phasing Down HFCs. Advancing energy efficiency will help meet the increasing energy demand, improve energy security, and fight climate change. To advance appliance efficiency, the United States and India should build on their strong partnership under the Super-efficient Equipment and Appliance Deployment (SEAD) program to harmonize upgrading test procedures and standards for more efficient air-conditioner technologies and couple leapfrogging opportunities to phase-down HFCs. The United States, as it has recently successfully done with China, should engage with India in this area to support continued progress in phasing down HFCs and other climate forcers. For efficient buildings, the dialogue should engage the Indian Planning Commission, the Ministry of Power, the Ministry of Urban Development, and Bureau of Energy Efficiency, state leaders, real estate developers, and other stakeholders for increased building code adoption and compliance. For example, New York and California could share experiences developing energy efficiency building codes and compliance models with Indian states.
Preparing Communities for Climate Change. The United States should work with India to create a new bilateral program engaging cities and states, focused on climate adaptation, including common challenges such as flooding, infrastructure, heat and other climate disasters. NRDC and its partners have been active in the launch of South Asia’s first Heat Action Plan, a comprehensive early warning system and preparedness plan for extreme heat events in India. Drawing from this experience and the success of the JCERDC, the process for this bilateral program would include national and subnational components with joint funding to support an award process and a web-based platform for information sharing and conferences.

Recently, the United States and China reached an agreement to work toward phasing down HFC production under the Montreal Protocol, the treaty that saved the ozone layer. As part of our ongoing project, the Council on Energy, Environment and Water (CEEW), the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the Institute for Governance & Sustainable Development (IGSD), and the Energy and Resource Institute (TERI), in consultation with the Confederation of Indian Industries (CII), the Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning Manufacturers Association (RAMA) and the Society of Indian Automobile Manufacturers (SIAM), we are conducting a study of the business case for Indian companies to leapfrog and phase-down HFCs. We’ll be releasing our findings on June 26 at the Montreal Protocol meetings in Bangkok. Indian leaders and Secretary Kerry could create momentum toward progress in phasing-down HFCs globally under the Montreal Protocol.

The Strategic Dialogue discussions hold much promise for progress on climate change that would benefit both countries. As we’ve seen climate disasters around the globe - from Superstorm Sandy to extreme heat events in India - now is the time for our leaders to take action to protect our economy and communities. We’ll be watching to see what our leaders can deliver.

Photo by Bhaskar Deol, NRDC

Slaughtering Wolves Is Not Wildlife Management

2013-06-18T23:00:02Z

Zack Strong, Wildlife Conservation Fellow, Livingston, Montana

Last month, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (FWP) issued proposed rules for a 2013-14 wolf hunting and trapping season. Although wolves in Montana are still fresh off the endangered species list, and the state's wolf population declined by 4% last year, FWP’s proposed season is – by far – its most aggressive yet.

In no uncertain terms, the agency explains that its singular goal is to further reduce Montana’s wolf population. To achieve that, it says, more than half of the state’s wolves must die. “Mortality levels exceeding 50% are generally required to initiate a population decline,” FWP explains. “To be clear, the current management intent at this time is to reduce the population.”

FWP proposes to implement this “management” plan by:

extending the general hunting season from four and a half to six and a half months (September 15 to March 31);
increasing per-person bag limits from one wolf to five;
continuing to allow trapping of wolves (which causes prolonged suffering and results in significant capture of non-target species);
allowing wolves to be shot over baited traps;
allowing the use of electronic calls (some of which mimic the cries of pups);
allowing pregnant or lactating female wolves to be killed;
allowing multiple wolves, and possibly entire packs, that reside primarily within Yellowstone and Glacier National Parks to be killed; and
maintaining no statewide and only two hunting district quotas.

That is not management, it’s slaughter—and for no good reason. FWP offers only three justifications for proposing such severe measures: 1) to reduce livestock depredations; 2) to protect ungulate populations that are “performing poorly”; and 3) because some members of the public want fewer wolves. None of these reasons warrant the type of indiscriminate, blanket approach to killing wolves FWP proposes; in fact, such an approach may be counter-productive.

For example, studies show that indiscriminate, non-selective hunting of predators is unlikely to reduce, and may actually increase, livestock depredations. This is because hunting does not target problem animals, may displace predators from areas of low human use (e.g., wilderness) to areas of higher human use (e.g., ranches), and could disrupt pack social organization, leading to increased breeding (more hungry mouths to feed), and decreased hunting efficiency (predators will look for easier prey).

With respect to “poorly performing” ungulate populations: in 2012, Montana’s statewide elk population was 22,000 over state management goals. The vast majority of elk hunting districts in the state are at or above objective (see map below). Further, FWP must acknowledge that many factors other than wolves affect ungulate populations, such as habitat loss, development, severe winter weather, other predators, fire suppression, drought, and hunter harvest. Also, FWP should consider the many ways wolves benefit elk and keep their herds healthy, such as by culling weak, injured and unhealthy animals, and possibly slowing the spread of chronic wasting disease.

Perhaps the primary reason FWP wants to kill so many wolves is to try to appease the only two constituencies it explicitly recognizes in the document that outlines its proposed 2013-14 season: hunters and livestock owners. But this fails to recognize the many forward-thinking hunters and livestock owners who want to share the landscape with wolves, not eliminate them. FWP must also manage for their interests, as well as the interests of Montana’s many eco-tourism operators, wildlife photographers, and members of the public who want to see more predators in our state, not fewer.

A reasoned, targeted, incremental approach to managing gray wolves in Montana makes sense. The rash, biased, indiscriminate hunting and trapping season FWP has proposed does not.

(Wolf Photo by Dark_muse on Flickr)

California, by Planning Early for Nuclear Retirement, Positioned to More Safely End its Nuclear Era

2013-06-18T21:42:22Z

Carl Zichella, Director of Western Energy Transmission, San Francisco

With the announcement that the two remaining San Onofre nuclear plants in southern California are being retired permanently, you may wonder what will happen to the remains, some of which retain significant levels of radioactivity, and how the costs will be covered.

My colleague Jordan Weaver blogs in detail on the mess that a failure to plan for decommissioning --and its costs -- is creating around the country. California, however, has avoided the uncertainty on how to pay for decommissioning that is plaguing others that bet on atomic energy at a time when nuclear proponents still claimed its operating costs would be so low, it would be “too cheap to meter.”

Way back in 1983, when “nuclear dinosaurs” roamed the California Public Utilities Commission, an environmental colleague and I initiated an effort to require that utility customers’ contributions to decommissioning nuclear plants be invested in such a way that they would be available when the operational lives of these facilities were over.

We were residents of Humboldt County at the time, and the local nuclear plant had been shuttered seven years earlier due to its proximity to earthquake faults. What would happen when it was dismantled, we wondered? How would the utility (PG&E in this case) pay for it? What about larger nuclear plants? We, with other locals in a group known as the “Redwood Alliance,” decided to find out. We organized the first public conferences ever held on nuclear decommissioning.

The first event at Humboldt State University was keynoted by Amory Lovins, then a rising star in the energy world, who gained notoriety for his essay in Foreign Affairs magazine entitled: “Energy Strategy, the Road Not Taken.” The second was keynoted by Ralph Nader, whose organization the Critical Mass Energy Project had begun to wonder about the nuclear end-of-life issues, too. We invited experts from the nuclear industry, government scientists, economists and contractors from Battelle Pacific National Laboratory, and private sector scientists to help us figure it out. As we learned more, a plan began to take shape and we decided to plunge into the deep waters of the California Public Utilities Commission to propose a policy that would protect California’s people and resources when it came time to retire her nukes, big and small.

The idea was to ensure that funds for decommissioning would be protected from loss should a nuclear accident (or other factor) force the plant owner into bankruptcy. At the time, the two Diablo Canyon plants in central California represented half of all PG&E’s assets, and errors in the construction process had raised serious issues about the affordability of plant completion and operation. Having the money run out prior to completion could create a public safety challenge, we reasoned.

The proposal I made (with my friend and colleague J.A. Savage, now a prominent energy journalist and editor) was to set up an independently administered fund, external to the utilities’ assets. Contributions from ratepayers would be collected and when combined with earnings and interest over the plant’s lifetime, would pay for decommissioning when the time came. It was important that the funds be segregated from utility assets because if anything happened to the solvency of a utility (say in the event of a nuclear accident affecting a major portion of a utility’s capital investment), the fund could be protected from creditors. At the time many scoffed at the idea that a utility could ever go bankrupt. But in fact, California’s policy protected Diablo Canyon’s decommissioning fund during PG&E’s bankruptcy in April, 2001. Then- (and now) Governor Jerry Brown supported the proposal through his appointees at the California Energy Commission, and assigned Commission staff to assist us. Our proposal was adopted by the Public Utilities Commission and remains in effect. California is the only state with such a policy. The fund now contains more than $6 billion. Time will tell if it is enough.

California is not the only western state that has had to cope in recent years with the decommissioning of a large-scale nuclear reactor. Oregon’s 1130 megawatt- Trojan Nuclear Plant was retired in 1993 after 17 years of service under circumstances quite analogous to those faced by the San Onofre operators (the prospect of costly repairs persuaded the owners to cut their losses). Decommissioning began three years later and took almost nine years. The plant’s major radioactive parts were shipped to a low-level waste repository near Richland, Washington. The spent fuel will remain onsite indefinitely in protective concrete casks. The 2006 disassembly of Trojan’s giant cooling tower became a YouTube sensation.

The problem will only grow. Half of all U.S. nuclear plants are over 30 years old (and designed to last 40). The rest are all older than 20. While many have applied for (and 60 have received) 20-year license extensions, many may never take advantage as nuclear technology becomes increasingly uncompetitive with alternatives, including lower cost, less risky, renewable energy.

You may also be wondering how California will deal with the loss of 2200 megawatts that San Onofre once supplied. My colleague Devra Wang recently blogged on strategies for replacing this energy and related grid services principally with a mix of clean renewable power, demand response, and energy efficiency. California is crafting a clean energy solution to replace the San Onofre reactors. Other states facing similar problems should pay attention to this strategy.

China Adds Another Tool to Curb Pollution, Launching First Cap and Trade Program

2013-06-18T21:28:30Z

Stefanie Tanenhaus, MAP Energy Fellow, San Francisco

China launched its first cap and trade program to reduce carbon pollution today, a landmark advance toward fighting climate change. As the world’s largest source of carbon dioxide, China is a notable new player joining California and eight other countries and jurisdictions around the world with such programs.

China produces one quarter of the world’s carbon pollution, and today’s launch is just the first of seven pilot cap and trade programs that by 2015 will cover 7 percent of the country’s total emissions –which is more than what Germany emits each year according to the World Bank. Under a cap and trade program, polluters buy or sell (trade) permits that allow them to produce a steadily declining amount of emissions (cap).

Addressing Climate Change Through Comprehensive Efforts

In both California and China, the cap and trade program is just one element of a much more comprehensive effort to reduce pollution. For example, like California, China requires its utilities to help customers use energy more efficiently. Both also have ambitious targets to increase generation from renewable resources. And China has pledged to adopt more stringent fuel standards to slash air pollutants and is piloting efforts to reduce reliance on coal-fired electricity.

On Friday, China’s cabinet adopted 10 measures to improve air quality, including a mandate that large polluters like coal-fired power plants publicly release detailed environmental information. Another breakthrough is the recent agreement between China and the United States to work together on phasing down the production and consumption of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), potent greenhouse gases used in refrigerators, air conditioners, and industrial applications.

China’s Plan for Expanding Cap and Trade

Seven different cities and regions across China including Beijing, Shanghai, Shenzhen, Tianjin, Chongqing, Guangdong and Hubei have pilot cap-and-trade programs in development. These cities and provinces represent a range of different industries, so each program will be tailored to local characteristics with different reduction targets. Today, the city of Shenzhen’s launch will limit carbon emissions from more than 630 industrial companies, with a target to reduce the city’s overall carbon consumption by 21 percent by 2015. Shenzhen will be joined over the next year by the six remaining programs and if all goes well, China aims to have a nationwide system in place by 2016.

Governor Brown and Ministry of Commerce Sign Trade Agreement in April 2013 (Image credit:CA.Gov)

Moving Forward Together

Mary Nichols, chairman of the state’s Air Resources Board that oversees California’s comprehensive climate change program, is in Shenzhen for the program’s inauguration. Nichols and Director of the Shenzhen Development and Reform Commission Xu Anliang signed a memorandum of understanding to work together on carbon mitigation efforts, including cap and trade and low carbon technology exchange. Under the agreement, California and China will share best practices on program design components such as emissions data measurement and verification, market monitoring, compliance and enforcement, which are critical elements to the success of cap and trade.

The agreement builds on recent efforts to increase cooperation between China and the Golden State. On a trip to China in April, California Governor Jerry Brown signed agreements with China's Ministry of Environmental Protection to strengthen and coordinate strategies to improve air quality, and with China's Ministry of Commerce and six Chinese provinces and regions to expand trade and investment, particularly in the sectors of new energy, environmental protection and infrastructure.

The Time For Action

China’s adoption of cap and trade is a milestone in the development of global climate solutions, and the growing country has good reasons to act now. The notoriously poor air quality in Chinese cities again drew international attention earlier this year, when Beijing’s severe smog lingered for days, threatening the health of residents. China’s launch of cap and trade adds another important tool for the world’s largest source of carbon dioxide to reign in emissions, and the exchange of experiences and lessons learned between China and California can help ensure the programs are successful.

Mary Nichols offered her congratulations and support to the city of Shenzhen at the program’s launching ceremony, saying “the actions of states, provinces, and cities are creating a foundation that national and international action can spring from. We are blazing the trail…We look forward to continuing to work with you, to learn together by doing – and to show the rest of the world how fighting climate change can be done.”

Known carcinogens used in 34% of reported fracking operations in 2011-2012

2013-06-18T17:06:11Z

Amy Mall, Senior Policy Analyst, Washington, D.C.

A recent analysis from SkyTruth has found that cancer-causing chemicals were used in about a third of fracking operations reported to FracFocus over a 21-month period in 2011 and 2012. The SkyTruth analysis reviewed more than 27,000 reports. The three most common carcinogens used in fracking were formaldehyde, naphthalene, and benzyl chloride. Check out the SkyTruth post for more details.

Unacceptable Levels - Pollution just got personal: a new movie

2013-06-18T16:35:23Z

Jennifer Sass, Senior Scientist, Washington, D.C.

Pollution isn’t just what you can see littered in the ditches by the side of the road. It’s also the hazardous chemicals you can’t see in the air we breathe, the water we drink and wash in, the food we eat, and the ground we play on. In all of our blood and urine hazardous chemicals can be measured by the dozens. How do they get there? That’s a story worth watching. The new movie – Unacceptable Levels – shows just how ‘up close and personal’ pollution can be.

In an informative, factual, and entertaining format – especially cameo appearances from the Muppets and Jack Nicholson as Penguin – the movie Unacceptable Levels makes some critically important points about how hazardous chemicals get into the places we live, play, work, and learn.

First, Unacceptable Levels goes beyond the obvious smokestack and tailpipe pollution, to show how many of the hazardous chemicals we find in our bodies are ones we invite into our homes, for example, as common ingredients in soaps and cosmetics, in air fresheners, or as flame retardants and stain-resistant coatings on furniture. Do you like that new car smell? That’s a mixture of off-gassing volatile toxic chemicals. Do you use dryer sheets that make your laundry soft and perfumed? Those are toxic chemicals too.

Second, Unacceptable Levels explains how our one-at-a-time regulatory system allows levels of hazardous chemicals into our environment at low levels considered “safe”, but fails to take into account that we are exposed to dozens – probably hundreds – of such chemicals at the same time. Altogether, they are not likely to be so benign. And, in particular, the combination of chemicals may pose an increased risk for people that are especially vulnerable, either because of illness, age, gender, dietary patterns, lifestyle, nutrition status, or location. For example, if I live next to a factory that belches out toxic pollution every day, then my “background” exposures added to the other chemical exposures are more likely to put me over the “acceptable” exposure limit. And, what if I’m pregnant? Is a level that is safe for me also safe for the fetus that is sharing my blood circulation? Does anyone consider this when a new chemical is approved for market? And, how are new chemicals approved for the market anyhow? And, that gets us to the third point of the movie.

Third, Unacceptable Levels interviews a suite of scientists who expertly and intelligibly explain our regulatory systems and the gaps and holes that allow hazardous chemicals to flow out into our environment in fire hose fashion.

If you don’t believe me, come see Unacceptable Levels and hear what the experts have to say! (Disclaimer- I am one of the experts in the movie, but even more reason for you to come along!)

WATCH THE TRAILER and FIND A SCREENING NEAR YOU

Wildlife Killing Exposé Goes on the Road

2013-06-18T13:42:00Z

Melissa Waage, Campaign Director, Washington, DC

The U. S. Department of Agriculture's Wildlife Services program slaughters a hundred thousand wild carnivores each year on the public dime. NRDC produced our documentary Wild Things to expose this taxpayer-funded carnage and show what a new breed of ranchers are doing to find a better way. Now Wild Things is hitting the road and spreading the word on Wildlife Services predator control in some of the places where it matters most.

We're starting with a series of screenings in California next week, where Wildlife Services' lethal approach has created much controversy recently. Local governments including Marin County and the city of Davis have ended their work with Wildlife Services over its scorched-earth approach to predator control. Last summer, the Sacramento Bee published an in-depth series of investigative articles on Wildlife Services predator control. The Voice of San Diego examined questionable wildlife killings in San Diego County and pressed Wildlife Services to release information about why the animals were killed.

Communities across California can learn from the experience of ranchers documented in Wild Things. The film features Marin County ranchers forging a path of their own without Wildlife Services, as well as other Western ranchers who have chosen predator-friendly ranching and are showing that it works.

Meanwhile, California members of Congress are starting to take on the taxpayer waste and environmental consequences of needless predator killing. Rep. John Campbell (R-Irvine) co-authored legislation to end Wildlife Services' use of the most dangerous predator poisons. Rep. Susan Davis (D-San Diego) has introduced a bill to improve Wildlife Services' reporting and transparency around wildlife killing.

There's never been a better time to open up a conversation about lethal predator control, Wildlife Services, and coexistence solutions. We're teaming up with allied organizations to present and discuss Wild Things at the following screenings. Learn more and reserve your seat below or at the film's web page.

Tuesday, June 25 -- Sacramento reception, Screening & Panel Discussion

Time: 6 pm (free reception); 7 pm (public screening & panel)
Sponsors: Natural Resources Defense Council, Animal Welfare Institute, Humane Society of the US, International Fund for Animal Welfare, and Project Coyote
Location: Crest Theater, 1013 K Street, Sacramento, CA 95814
RSVP here

Wednesday, June 26 -- San Francisco Screening & Panel Discussion

Time: 7pm
Sponsors: Natural Resources Defense Council, Animal Welfare Institute, Humane Society of the US, International Fund for Animal Welfare, and Project Coyote
Location: San Francisco SPCA, 243 Alabama Street, San Francisco, CA 94103
RSVP here

Thursday, June 27 -- Berkeley Screening & Panel Discussion

Time: 6 pm (screening), 7 pm (panel discussion)
Sponsors: Natural Resources Defense Council, Animal Welfare Institute, Humane Society of the US, International Fund for Animal Welfare, and Project Coyote
Location: David Brower Center, 2150 Allston Way, Berkeley, CA 94704
RSVP here

Nobel Laureates: Reject the Keystone XL Tar Sands Pipeline and "Be on the Right Side of History"

2013-06-18T12:21:25Z

Danielle Droitsch, Director, Canada Project, Washington, D.C.

Recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize are calling for the rejection of the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. A letter from 10 Nobel Peace Prize winners addressed to both the President and Secretary of State Kerry announced by the Nobel Women's Initiative was inspired by the Laureates’ concern for the rapidly expanding Canadian tar sands. As wildfires burn out of control in Colorado adding to record breaking weather across the nation, the Laureates said “as leaders who have spoken out strongly on these issues, we urge you, once again, to be on the right side of history and send a clear message that you are serious about moving beyond dirty oil.” The letter sent today followed an earlier letter sent in 2011 also calling for a rejection of Keystone XL. When the great moral leaders of our time, including Archbishop Tutu, call for a rejection of tar sands in the face of catastrophic climate change, it is time for the U.S. to reject the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline, a linchpin enabling the tripling of expansion of this dirty oil.

Nobel Laureates including Archbishop Desmond Tutu and His Holiness the Dalai Lama sent a previous letter to President Obama in September 2011. A copy of the advertisement in the Washington Post featuring the letter is above.

"Like millions of others, we were buoyed by words in the President’s second inaugural address: “We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that failure to do so would betray our children and future generations.” Mr. President and Secretary Kerry, this is an opportunity to begin to fulfil that promise. While there is no one policy or action that will avoid dangerous climate change, saying ‘no’ to the Keystone XL pipeline is a critical step in the right direction. Now is the time for unwavering leadership." - Nobel Laureates Letter, 2013

The climate impacts of a world that accommodates tar sands expansion are unimaginable. If industry and the Canadian and Albertan governments had their way we would be on track for (6 degrees Centigrade) of global warming – triple the two degree limit that the President has promised to avoid.

“The International Energy Agency, among many other respected bodies, has found that in order to prevent catastrophic global warming of over two degrees centigrade we must leave two thirds of fossil fuels in the ground.” – Nobel Laureates Letter, 2013

In addition to the climate pollution, the tar sands are doing irreversible damage to water, air, land, animals and communities in Northern Alberta and along their pipeline routes where the question of a spill is not if, but when.

“Recent tar sands oil spills in Kalamazo, MI and Mayflower AR have served as a harsh reminder that shipping the world’s dirtiest oil will never likely be safe enough for human health and the environment.” – Nobel Laureates Letter, 2013

President Obama and Senator Kerry have both been clear about the urgency and importance of dealing with climate change, and recognizing that as the world’s largest polluter, the U.S. is a critical player in ensuring a safe future for generations to come. The Keystone XL tar sand pipeline debate has illustrated the two pathways we face as a country. One that locks us into decades of dirty fossil fuels taking us down a path of negatively affecting millions of lives and livelihoods. And the other pathway, where we build real energy security based on clean and renewable energy that will protect our economy, our people, and future generations.

The Laureates acknowledged the President was under pressure to approve Keystone XL especially by big oil interests.

“We also recognize the pressure from forces in your own country. The Keystone XL pipeline will not benefit or improve the lives of Americans, but nevertheless we understand that the politics of action on climate are not easy. We believe you are the kind of leaders who can stand up to those interests when necessary, to do what is right for the world and for future generations.” – Nobel Laureates Letter

The decision on the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline has emerged as an issue of international interest. It is about standing up to big oil and rejecting the expansion of some of the dirtiest oil on earth. President Obama and Secretary Kerry: it is time to say no to the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline once and for all.

We have the right to know what is in the air we breathe - A guest blog from Dominic Pierceall

2013-06-17T23:37:10Z

Diane Bailey, Senior Scientist, San Francisco

This past semester I had the good fortune of working with a group of students through a “Service Learning Project” in a class on Environmental Justice at the University of California Berkeley. The work focused on Community Air Monitoring, exploring new technology that makes air monitors more accessible to people. The following is a guest blog from one of the students, Dominic Pierceall, about how particulate pollution affects vulnerable communities. Another post reporting the results of the group project will follow.

If you live in an urban area, near factories, near refineries, close to highways, or in an industrial area, there’s a good chance that you are being exposed to harmful levels of air pollutants. These pollutants are tested for on a broad, regional scale by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other agencies, but it turns out that there is not a lot of testing done in some communities where pollution may be the highest. This is where community air monitoring can help inform residents how safe their air may be or if they are breathing in high levels of harmful pollutants into the air.

One of the pollutants that public health experts are concerned with in particular is known as “particulate matter” (PM).

What is particulate matter?

According to Hamilton County, Ohio, “Thick, black smoke belching out of the exhaust pipes of vehicles... Swirls of dust picked up by the wind…Ash and soot coming from your campfire. These are all examples of particulate matter (PM). PM is the term used for solid or liquid particles emitted to the air. Some particles are large enough to be seen, and others are so small they can only be detected with an electron microscope.”

Where does particulate matter come from?

Particulate matter can come from many sources. Generally, any activity which involves burning of materials or any dust generating activities are sources of PM. Though some sources are natural, such as volcanoes, humans create huge quantities of particulate matter, such as smoke stacks at factories and power plants. We have control over some sources like wood-burning fireplaces, our cars and SUVs, gas-powered lawn mowers, leaf blowers, and weed whackers – all of these produce particulate pollution.

Most industrial areas that have high PM levels are also situated near low-income housing and are disproportionately communities of color. Exposure to certain levels and types of PM are known to cause asthma, cancer, and many other health impacts.

We as citizens need to take a stand and find out what is in the air we breathe so we can decide where it is safe for our families to live. Community Air Monitoring Projects can help people fill in the gaps where there is no official government air monitoring. Not everyone has the ability to do this, but thanks to advances in technology we can now purchase handheld or portable air quality monitors. These kinds of projects are springing up all over the country with diverse resources available online.

Also, as a community we can request legislators to help us enforce our right to clean air, not only by cracking down on the companies responsible for high pollution but also by putting pressure on government agencies that are responsible for testing. And, if we all contribute as a community and test the air, report the data, and educate others, we can provide a safer environment not only for ourselves, but for our children and the generations to come.

A National Model for Sustainable Food Waste Disposal Is Being Created Where? Right Here in New York City

2013-06-17T22:00:01Z

Eric Goldstein, Director of NRDC's New York City Environment, NY

The New York Times is giving front page coverage today to the latest plans by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg for advancing composting and environmentally sound waste measures for disposing of food scraps collected in the nation’s largest city. And the media attention is well-deserved.

If the Bloomberg Administration’s new food waste collection programs are successful, they will constitute the biggest change to waste handling here in New York since curbside recycling collections of paper, metals, glass and plastic began more than 20 years ago.

Food waste is the largest single portion of the residential waste stream. It accounts for more than 20 per cent of municipal trash, both in New York City and around the nation. Leaf and yard wastes --which are also compostable and can be collected together with food scraps -- account for another five per cent or more.

Right now, more than 97 per cent of food wastes and a large portion of leaf and yard wastes are being transported to landfills and incinerators. This is an expensive proposition and one that creates unnecessary environmental burdens for our air, water and land.

In contrast, as Mayor Bloomberg and his Sanitation Department have concluded, the separate collection of food waste and yard waste for use as compost and/or energy generation, can save taxpayer dollars and reduce global warming emissions.

Here in New York City, the food waste collection program is beginning in three different arenas.

The first is single-family residences, where the initial curbside organics collection program was rolled out in one Staten Island neighborhood. It has already secured a household participation rate of 43%. And the food and yard waste bins are being filled almost exclusively with only food wastes and yards waste (the city reports a contamination rate of less than one per cent).

Next, the city has begun collecting food wastes from lunchrooms in nearly 100 city schools. This is terrific because as school kids learn to participate in the program they will take their knowledge home; they become the recyclers and composters of tomorrow. The city plans to have the school lunchroom composting program up and running in more than 400 city schools by December.

Third, the city has begun testing the curbside collection of food waste in residential high-rise buildings. Leading the way is The Helena -- a modern, 38 story, LEED gold building on Manhattan’s west side. With cooperation from the Durst Organization and building residents, all 600 units are able to participate in the program and turn their food waste into compost that can be used in parks, community gardens and neighborhood beautification projects.

“New York City’s Mayor Michael Bloomberg is advancing plans to transform waste handling in the nation’s largest city. In addition to curbside collection of food waste at single family homes and throughout the city’s public schools, his Sanitation Department has begun the first curbside food waste collection program at a Manhattan high-rise -- The Helena – pictured here.”

Of course, the foundation for the Mayor’s recent announcement was laid by organizations like the Lower East Side Ecology Center and Grow NYC, which have been demonstrating the opportunities of composting by collecting food waste at the city’s Greenmarkets for many years. Their successes have inspired city waste planners.

Significantly, two of the candidates vying to succeed Mayor Bloomberg in office – City Council Speaker Chris Quinn and Public Advocate Bill DeBlasio – have indicated their strong support for the Mayor’s new food waste initiative. Indeed, Speaker Quinn, according to the Times, has even suggested that she will seek to advance legislation this summer to establish food waste collection pilots in other boroughs, so that the voluntary phase of the program will be sure to continue into the next Administration.

This is similar to the way in which other curbside composting programs rolled out in places like San Francisco and Seattle. They began as voluntary operations for a number of years while the public became familiar with the concept and as municipal leaders worked out the kinks and the operational details. These programs have since become mandatory. And they are succeeding in significantly reducing wastes sent to landfills and in saving taxpayer dollars.

In addition to Seattle and San Francisco, curbside food waste collection programs are now operating in well over 100 jurisdictions around the country from Portland, to Boulder, to Princeton to Cambridge. San Antonio has just added a curbside collection program and cities like Boston are giving the idea a serious look.

If New York City, with all of its complexities can make curbside food waste collections work, it will indeed serve as a model for other municipalities to consider.

Thus, Mayor Bloomberg, his chief of staff Cas Holloway, along with Sanitation Commissioner John Doherty and his deputy Ron Gonen, all deserve a round of applause. And the New York Times, by placing this story on the front page, has caught onto something for forward-looking municipal waste planners in other cities to chew over.

Sailors and Sea Stewards (guest blog post by Megan Hayes)

2013-06-17T21:38:49Z

Karen Garrison, Co-Director, Oceans Program, San Francisco

Megan Hayes is a Stanback summer Intern for NRDC’s Oceans Program in San Francisco. A recent graduate of the University of California Berkeley with a degree in Marine Sciences, she’ll be heading to Duke University in the fall for a Masters in Environmental Management. She has a background in sailboat racing, competing on the national and international levels as well as doing a short stint in the realm of the America’s Cup.

This is the first summer where my work uniform isn’t sunscreen, a lifejacket and a whistle. Summers prior, I was a sailing instructor for a local youth program, and now I’m an intern with the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)'s Oceans Program. In the past, my general concerns were to keep the kids in their boats, keep the boats in the water, and keep the water out of their boats. All too often I found I was mediating the children's fear of the water. Other than being cold and wet, the estuary’s waters where I learned to sail (and then taught) weren’t the cleanest. I couldn’t help but be at a loss for words when trying to answer common questions from my charges: “Why is there so much trash?” “Who’s going to clean up this mess?” “Will the water make me sick?” Personally I was curious about the life forms below the water’s edge. What was life like for them?

This summer, the 34th America’s Cup, an international sailboat race for the oldest trophy in sport, will take place on our San Francisco Bay waters. The race authority has decided to use the race platform to raise awareness of ocean conservation efforts. That’s a welcome step and one I applaud. However, being a sailor and knowing how small the sport’s following is, I know the promotion of healthy oceans also deserves a much larger platform.

Sailing—and sharing that thrill with others—is my passion. But the ocean and its wildlife gives us much more than pleasure. It feeds us, buffers our climate, fuels us with oxygen, absorbs our emissions, and inspires us with wonder: in short, our health depends on a healthy ocean.

While we benefit from the oceans, it demands little of us. As a result, there’s a stark contrast between the number of people who rely on its resources and those who pay attention to its condition. That has to change, and change quickly; otherwise we risk losing amazing and essential benefits.

Unsustainable fishing practices, plastic pollution and ocean acidification are just some of the challenges the ocean faces and that NRDC is addressing. Solutions are available: thanks to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the nation’s main fishery management law, the U.S. has made real gains putting fisheries on the road to sustainability. Protected areas in Florida, California and Hawaii harbor more and bigger fish. In Europe and Canada, measures to hold producers of plastics and other packaging responsible for dealing with the waste are helping to increase recycling and reduce the amount cities and taxpayers pay for managing those wastes.

Efforts like these have the best chance of succeeding when the public joins us in the fight.

Crew members of America’s Cup teams have each made a pledge to do something to protect the ocean—to use canvas bags instead of plastic, support a marine protected area, eat only sustainably caught seafood. June is National Oceans Month—a perfect time to start following their lead. Let's take a moment to think about how we contribute to this global ocean health problem, and how we can help turn it around.

Next Steps in the Retirement of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station - SONGS

2013-06-17T21:34:55Z

Jordan Weaver, Project Scientist and Science Center Fellow, Washington, D.C.

Now that Southern California Edison (SCE) has decided to permanently retire the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) (the plant has been shut down since early 2012), the company must begin the process of decommissioning, which involves safely removing SONGS from service, reducing the residual radioactivity low enough so as to allow the release of the property, and formal termination of its Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) operating license. There are basically four steps to this process. First, the reactor operator must unload spent fuel from the core to the pool for final cooling. Second, remaining spent fuel in the pool is transferred into dry storage (in a cask) onsite. Third, there is a potentially long waiting period of decades until some portion of the radioactivity has decayed and the decommissioning fund is fully collected. And finally, fourth, the plant is dismantled and the site is returned to “restricted” or “unrestricted” use.

California, by way of the state’s Public Utilities Commission, adopted a policy that required utilities to set up an independently administered fund early on to handle decommissioning costs, a fund that is external to the utility’s assets and more or less beyond their control. Hopefully, as a result SONGS will avoid much controversy along these lines. This is not always the case, however, where the decommissioning process has seen a fair amount of controversy for decades, mostly over the costs, timing, and final cleanup standards.[1] Describing the process at the Zion Nuclear Generating Station in Illinois in 2010, the New York Times noted: “the cost of dismantling the vast steel and concrete building, with multiple areas of radioactive contamination, would exceed $1 billion, double what it had cost to build the reactors in the 1970s. Nor could Commonwealth Edison walk away from the plant, because of the contamination.”[2]

Under NRC regulations, typically have 60 years to complete decommissioning operations. Whether to immediately begin decontamination and dismantling (referred to as DECON by the NRC) or delay this until a later date allowing the decay of radioactive materials before any further actions (known as SAFSTOR), the NRC oversight process will remain in effect, along with other agencies such as the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Department of Transportation and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In pursuing either of the DECON or SAFSTOR options, a complete decommissioning will eventually depend on the approval of the NRC and the availability of waste disposal sites.

In 1996, NRC wrote a new rule that stated no major decommissioning activities to be undertaken until after specific planning documents are provided to the NRC and to the public. The NRC will hold a public meeting after the submittal of the post-shutdown decommissioning activities report (PSDAR) and another meeting following the license termination plan (LTP). According to a Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) fact sheet on decommissioning, the operator must submit its PSDAR within two years following the shutdown. This report will describe the planned decommissioning options (DECON, SAFSTOR, etc.), schedules for completion, discussion of how activities will adhere to previously issued EISs, and estimates of the costs. The licensee will not be able to access the full fund for decommissioning until their cost-estimates have been accepted by the NRC.

An opportunity for a public hearing request will be provided prior to the issuance of a license amendment approving the License Termination Plan. According to 10 CFR 20.1405, upon receipt of the LTP or decommissioning plan, the Commission shall notify and solicit comments from local/State governments and tribes that could be affected, as well as the EPA if the licensee intends to decommission according to 10 CFR 20.1404. Following this, the NRC will publish a notice in the Federal Register (as well as local forums) to solicit comments from the public. At the end of 90 days, if the NRC has no objections, they may begin decommissioning.

The entire process involves three main stages: (1) initial activities, (2) major decommissioning activities, and (3) license termination activities. A short description of each of these stages is provided on the NRC’s webpage fact sheet on decommissioning, which describes the steps required by the licensee and the NRC, as well as requirements to involve the public and control the use of the decommissioning fund.

For more information, see Table in NRC’s webpage fact sheet on decommissioning.

Decontamination Process

Once the plant is permanently shut down and the necessary planning phases have been submitted to the NRC, the plant will at some point begin decontaminating and/or removing contaminated equipment and materials, and placing spent fuel in dry storage until its final disposal. The removal of all this material and equipment is to reduce any exposures that may occur to workers as they continue with the decommissioning process.

Following this step, they still must deal with the remaining contamination during a cleanup phase that involves using chemical, physical, electrical, and ultrasonic processes to remove radioactive material from areas like inside pipes or on floors and walls that were previously inaccessible. This removed material will be concentrated, packaged and transported to a low-level waste site or stored onsite.

The decontamination process can take over 5 years to complete and is a pre-requisite for terminating the license.

Decommissioning Funds

NRC requires the owner to establish a fund for each reactor that aims to deal with those costs that are specifically related to the portion of the site that has been contaminated by radioactive material, but does not require funds for dismantling buildings/facilities that do not pose a radiation hazard to workers or the public. Companies must review their funds and all associated planning each year and report to the NRC every two years estimating the minimum amount of money required for decommissioning operations and the adequacy of the fund being used to accumulate it. The size of the fund is supposed to be adjusted periodically to reflect current costs for labor, required energy, disposal, and potentially use any innovations in technology that would impact this assessment. Industry compliance with these requirements is not precise. As the New York Times noted last year, “Entergy is at least $90 million short of the projected $560 million cost of dismantling Vermont Yankee; the company is at least $500 million short of the $1.5 billion estimated cost of dismantling Indian Point 2 and 3.”[3]

The size of funds generally range from $300 million to $400 million and the formulas for calculating the minimum requirement as reported in the operators two-year reports to the NRC can be found in 10 CFR 50.75(c). For SONGS (which is a PWR with a greater than 3400 MWt power level), the minimum required is $105 million (January 1986 dollars) and must also incorporate an adjustment factor at least equal to 0.65 L + 0.13 E + 0.22 B, where L and E are escalation factors for labor and energy, respectively, and are to be taken from regional data of U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics and B is an escalation factor for waste burial and is to be taken from NRC report NUREG-1307, "Report on Waste Burial Charges."

Relevant Regulations:

10 CFR Part 20 Subpart E
10 CFR Part 50.75 Reporting and recordkeeping for decommissioning planning
10 CFR Part 50.82 Termination of license
10 CFR Part 51.53 Postconstruction environmental reports
10 CFR Part 51.95 Final Environmental Impact Statements—Production and Utilization Facilities

[1] See, Aging Nuclear Power Plants: Managing Plant Life and Decommissioning, September 1993, Office of Technology Assessment, https://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/doe/lanl/lib-www/ota/00418532.pdf; and for a more recent treatment in the press, see As Reactors Age, the Money to Close Them Lags, Matthew L. Wald., March 20, 2012, found online at http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/21/science/earth/as-nuclear-reactors-age-funds-to-close-them-lag.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&pagewanted=all.

[2] See, After the Nuclear Plant Powers Down, New York Times, Matthew L. Wald, Nov. 22, 2010, online at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/23/business/23nuke.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

[3] See, As Reactors Age, the Money to Close Them Lags, Matthew L. Wald., March 20, 2012, found online at http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/21/science/earth/as-nuclear-reactors-age-funds-to-close-them-lag.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&pagewanted=all.

Video Highlights Alternatives to HidroAysen: Part 3 of 4 in the Rios Libres Film Series

2013-06-17T21:32:11Z

Amanda Maxwell, Latin America Advocate, Washington, DC

This blog is part 3 of 4 in the Rios Libres video series. The goal of the series is to highlight four different aspects of the fight against five proposed dams in Chile’s Patagonia region. You can view the film on Patagonia Inc.’s The Cleanest Line blog and on National Geographic Adventure’s Beyond the Edge blog.

* * * * *

“El Norte tiene el mejor potencial solar en el mundo. ¡En el mundo! ¿Pues por qué quieren represas en el Sur? Es una locura. Absolutamente una locura.”

“The North of Chile has the best solar potential in the world. In the world! So why do they want dams in the South? It’s crazy. Absolutely crazy.”

Atacama Desert, a region rich in alternative energy resources; Photograph by James Q. Martin

A taxi driver told me these words in May 2011 on the way from the Arturo Merino Benitez Airport to my hotel in Santiago, and they have stuck with me ever since. Just days earlier, Chile’s authorities had approved the massive $10 billion HidroAysén project—five dams proposed on two of Patagonia’s wildest rivers—despite the woeful quality of the project’s environmental impact assessment and the fact that the large majority of Chileans were against the dams. The approval immediately launched demonstrations throughout the country – the largest protests the country had seen in over 20 years.

This solar plant in Chile’s Atacama Desert is feeding the mega mines with electricity; Photograph by James Q. Martin

I was not, in fact, in town to participate in the protests. I had come to Chile to present the results of a new study from NRDC about the levelized cost of energy in Chile.* NRDC had commissioned the analysis to test the argument I had heard many times in Chile: that renewables were too expensive to be developed at scale. The results of the study put that argument to rest: it showed that Chile’s biomass, biogas, geothermal, mini-hydro, and wind power options were already cost-competitive with the conventional energies –coal, diesel, and large hydro—in 2011. It also proved that solar would also be cost-competitive in a matter of years.

Wind farms in Patagonia, Chile; Photograph by James Q. Martin

What did this study have to do with HidroAysén? Everything. Proponents of HidroAysén and other proposed mega-dams in Patagonia say Chile needs HidroAysén’s 2,750 MW of capacity to meet the country’s future energy needs. They say Chile has no other viable options.

This is simply not true.

Chile has a remarkable and abundant array of energy options. Renewable projects are already growing more quickly than many expected just a few years ago. In early 2009, the total capacity of the approved and proposed non-conventional renewable energy projects listed in the government’s environmental impact assessment system was approximately 1,661 MW. At the end of 2012, that number had grown to 10,328 MW, according to Chile’s Center for Renewable Energy. When you combine the renewable options with robust energy efficiency efforts, Chile’s existing fleet of power plants, and the increasing presence of liquefied natural gas in the country, the idea that HidroAysén is necessary from a supply-demand standpoint loses all steam.

It is important to add that Chile’s renewable energy resources are located throughout the country: the northern deserts are said to have the best solar radiation in the world; the wind blows consistently along the coast line; the Andes run the length Chile’s interior offering great geothermal and small hydro potential. Transmission lines are needed to connect these resources to the demand – be it a copper mine, a small town, or one of the two main electric grid. But the length and complexity of these lines are far less daunting than the 1,200 km long transmission line that HidroAysén would require.

What’s more, the distributed nature of these resources would make the grid more stable than the HidroAysén model, which requires relying on an enormous quantity of energy at the other end of a very long line traversing volcanically and tectonically active territory. Chile has suffered through enough energy crises to continue depending on the same old kinds of energy supply.

Chile has a variety of options that it can use to meet its future energy needs without building massive dams in Patagonia, which would irrevocably disrupt the landscape and the lives of the people there. These options are already cost-competitive, and are becoming more so every day. They are distributed, which means they would help create a more stable grid in this earthquake-prone country. And they are more sustainable, avoiding the same kind of impacts that large dams inevitably create.

The majority of Aysén citizens know this. The majority of Chilean citizens know this. Thanks to the Rios Libres crew and others, people around the world now know this, too. My taxi driver in Santiago knew it two years ago. It is time for the companies behind HidroAysén and for the government to acknowledge this as well. Please send them a message urging them to cancel the project once and for all.

*The levelized cost of energy is a way of comparing the costs of different types of energy generation resources (e.g. coal, large hydro, solar, wind) to each other on an even basis, without market or political influence.