Skip to content

Posts from the ‘Blog’ Category

May 7

Kite Mapping

Citizen Watchdogging…with a Kite?

A little over a week ago, a small group of us ventured down to Manomet armed with a kite, a camera and a desire to know what, if any, progress had occurred with construction of the nuclear waste storage facility at Pilgrim.

Since we here at CCBW – and other groups such as Ecolaw and Pilgrim Watch – have been working to get more stringent permitting of the long-term nuclear waste storage facility at the Pilgrim Site, we were curious to know what additional work had been done.

With the help of the Public Lab, we were able to carry out ‘kite mapping’ near Pilgrim (completely legal, FAA- and Pilgrim security-notified), which resulted in some really interesting aerial photos of the area. Basically how it works is a relatively inexpensive camera is set to continuous shooting, housed inside a plastic bottle for impact resistance and stabilization, attached to a giant kite and launched up to 2,500 feet in the air. After about an hour, the camera and the kite are pulled down and, voila, thousands of aerial photos (we had over 3400 from our outing)!

The group watching on as the kite ascends into the sky over Manomet.

The group watching on as the kite ascends into the sky over Manomet.

Check out our research notes about our outing on the public lab site. More photos from the day can be seen on the CCBW Flickr page.

Unfortunately, the winds were not ideal that day – the kite was carried further over the bay instead of closer to the plant – meaning any ongoing construction could not be clearly determined from the photos. But the real value of our attempt is that that we demonstrated a technique that citizens can easily use for environmental watchdogging work.

Just last week, locals appealed the zoning permit granted by the town of Plymouth to Entergy that allows them to build the storage facility at Pilgrim, despite the fact that Pilgrim’s license to operate will expire in 19 years. The appeal, filed on April 25th, asks that the permit be revoked because long-term dry cask storage of nuclear waste is not a “permitted use” under the town’s zoning laws and such storage does not fit what the zoning permit considers an “accessory use.”

Aerial photo of the construction obtained in February 2013.

Aerial photo of the construction obtained in February 2013.

The appeal also asks the ZBA to require Entergy to obtain a special permit. This is important because acquiring a special permit is a much more stringent process. The special permit would allow the ZBA to set conditions that would insure that the storage facility is being built and operated in the safest and most environmentally sound way possible. It also requires a public hearing, providing more transparency and giving the public the opportunity to provide input.

The next step in the appeal process is for the Zoning Board to schedule a public hearing, which may be in June or July. Stay tuned….

Read more about the appeal in this Plymouth Daily News article.

For more information and a copy of the appeal, visit http://www.ecolaw.biz/nuclear-power

Apr 16

Nuclear Matters: Update on Nuclear Evacuation Planning

The following is the seventh in an ongoing series of articles being published in the Old Colony Memorial newspaper of Plymouth and on the Wicked Local website.

By William Maurer
Occupy Falmouth for Cape Cod Bay Watch
Published April 13, 2013

The 1979 Three Mile Island Nuclear Power Station accident demonstrated that radiological emergency evacuation planning was needed.

FEMA contracted a company named KLD to develop the software to formulate evacuation traffic management planning for a 10-mile radius around nuclear power stations. These plans first get approved by KLD and the power station owner (Entergy in the case of Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station in Plymouth), then by FEMA, and are then passed along to the state emergency management agencies for final approval. In our state this is the Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency (MEMA) for Pilgrim. Currently, the plans developed in 2004 are in place and are being updated with the 2010 census data.

Emergency management directors in the towns (Plymouth, Carver, Kingston, Duxbury and Marshfield) located within a 10-mile radius of Pilgrim – also known as the Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) – get a chance to review and comment on the plan. Towns outside of the 10-mile EPZ considered to be in the Ingestion Pathway Zone (IPZ) are not included in the review process and are excluded from preparedness training and information distribution. Cape Downwinders – a group of local activists – obtained a copy of the 2004 “KLD Associates Inc., Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, Development of Evacuation Time Estimates” and brought it to the attention of emergency management directors on Cape Cod.

The Cape Downwinders’ review of the 2004 KLD plans, relative to Cape Cod safety and preparedness, revealed many disturbing facts:

· A mislabeled rotary at the Bourne Bridge

· An omitted rotary at the Bourne Bridge

· Ignored traffic choke points at the mainland side of the Sagamore and Bourne Bridges

· Language masking the physical and enforced closure of the Bourne and Sagamore Bridges to Cape evacuation traffic (Bottom line: If you are on Cape Cod during a severe accident at Pilgrim, you are trapped on Cape Cod.)

· In peripheral towns, evacuation traffic control points have been established without the knowledge or notification of the emergency management directors, police, etc., in those towns.

· The Bourne State Police barracks is using the outdated 1999 edition of the evacuation plans.

· Emergency management directors on Cape Cod had never seen the plans since their conception or did not know the bridges would be closed to Cape Cod evacuation traffic.

Challenging these issues by the Cape Downwinders provoked the Oct. 3 presentation to the Barnstable County Regional Emergency Planning Committee (BCREPC) by MEMA Director Kurt Schwartz, which served as an introduction of the risk to Cape emergency management professionals. The Cape Downwinders’ research also instigated a number of meetings (ongoing) with MEMA officials and Cape Cod emergency management directors. Currently, MEMA has committed to working with Cape Cod emergency management directors to improve communication and develop another traffic study specifically addressing a nuclear accident at Pilgrim. The BCREPC, under the chairmanship of Chief George Baker from Mashpee, has also begun work on a Pilgrim task force subcommittee to develop and coordinate nuclear event preparedness on Cape Cod.

Although the process is extremely slow, support and genuine concern has certainly grown in the Cape Cod emergency management community. The emergency management directors in Bourne, Sandwich and Mashpee now know how the traffic in their towns will be rerouted, and Cape Codders are just beginning to realize that the bridges will be closed. And although it’s good to know, it’s unsettling to realize that we will be trapped on Cape Cod during a nuclear accident.

William Maurer is a retired construction project manager, a Falmouth resident and member of Occupy Falmouth.

Click here to read the article on the Wicked Local website.
Shared Under Creative Commons License: Attribution Non-Commercial Share Alike

Mar 19

Nuclear Matters: Radiological Emergency Plan for Cape Cod Does Not Comply With NRC Mandate

The following is the sixth in an ongoing series of articles being published in the Old Colony Memorial newspaper of Plymouth and on the Wicked Local website.

By Diane Turco
Cape Downwinders for Cape Cod Bay Watch
Published March 15, 2013

Courtesy: Cape Downwinders

Courtesy: Cape Downwinders

The ongoing Fukushima disaster and the fact that the aging Pilgrim Nuclear Power Reactor (Pilgrim) in Plymouth is of the same Mark I design that failed in Japan has heightened awareness and concern among citizens across the region. Whether one is for or against nuclear power, all area residents have reason to be concerned about public safety.

Cape Codders are currently questioning the evacuation and radiological emergency plan for the public, which is required by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and designed by Entergy and MEMA.

As of now, only residents within a 10-mile radius of Pilgrim are subject to the evacuation plan. This is the “EPZ”– the emergency planning zone. However, in Japan the NRC called for American citizens within a 50-mile zone to evacuate. If replicated here, that area would include all of Cape Cod. The state has no plans to evacuate Cape Cod residents and visitors. MEMA Director Kurt Schwartz spoke to the Barnstable County Regional Emergency Planning Committee last October and acknowledged that Cape residents would be “in harm’s way,” but would not be evacuated. Instead, the state’s plan knowingly confines residents in a danger zone until they can be eventually relocated elsewhere after exposure.

Currently within the NRC’s established 50-mile Ingestion Pathway Zone, Potassium Iodide pills are distributed to all Cape towns – clearly identifying these residents as an “at risk” population for exposure to radioactive materials. The Department of Public Health publishes safety response plans for farmers and food processors within the 50-mile zone on how to protect their animals and food, acknowledging the need for sheltering. However, there is no sheltering plan in place for human beings on the Cape aside from being directed to stay inside their homes.

Towns outside the EPZ, but within the 15-mile zone (for example, parts of Bourne and Sandwich) are considered in the “Shadow Evacuation Area” – the NRC term that describes the area where spontaneous and uncontrolled evacuations are likely to occur. The state approved emergency plan includes detailed traffic control points outlining blocked roads and redirected routes; however, until recently even emergency responders within this shadow area were unaware of their special status. While MEMA wThe current plan is reactive to an accident when, in fact, a choice can be made with a proactive stance. According to the NRC website on emergency preparedness, the agency “has the authority to take actions, including shutting down any reactor deemed not to provide reasonable assurance of the protection of public health and safety.” The Entergy/MEMA plans are predicated on the false assumption that plans on paper will work. How can they possibly work when Cape emergency responders were, until recently, unaware of the traffic control points and the plans apparently were written without public process?

The radiological emergency plan is nothing more than a salute to the NRC requirement by Entergy and subsequently approved by MEMA. A proactive plan, which would be in the best interest of public health and safety, is to remove the danger of Pilgrim’s operations by recognizing its inherent flaws and age. A reality-based plan would close the reactor and store the spent fuel in dry casks. This would provide economic conversion plans for Entergy employees and decommission the site, allowing for uses with public benefits and not inherent risks. The public needs to hold the NRC to its mandate.

Diane Turco is a resident Harwich and a retired special education teacher. She is working with Cape Downwinders, an organization whose mission is to protect the lives and welfare of residents of Cape Cod and the Islands against the threat of death or injury from Pilgrim Station’s operations.

Click here to read the full article on the Wicked Local Plymouth website.

Under Creative Commons License: Attribution Non-Commercial Share Alike

Mar 15

Right Whale

Reassessing Pilgrim’s Impact on Right Whales

Local groups have recently asked the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to reinitiate consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), related to the operation of Pilgrim. Section 7 of the ESA requires Federal agencies to insure that any action authorized, funded or carried out by them is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or destroy or adversely modify their critical habitat. Here, the federal action was NRC’s relicensing of Pilgrim for 20 more years of operations, which triggered ESA consultation for many endangered and threatened species, including North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena glacialis) that use Cape Cod Bay.

Last May, NMFS concluded informal consultation with the NRC regarding the relicensing of Pilgrim with a “not likely to adversely affect” finding for all species under NMFS jurisdiction, including right whales. But at that time, the federal agencies only considered Pilgrim’s effects on individual, adult whales.

However, new information has recently come to light – the fact that a mother right whale named Wart and her newborn calf were seen swimming very close to Pilgrim in January. Read more about Wart and her calf here. Wart and her calf were the first mother and calf right whale sighting in Cape Cod Bay in January in 27 years, and the only mother-calf pair ever documented occurring near Pilgrim. This new information should require the NRC and NMFS to reinitiate ESA Section 7 consultation. In other words, they should reassess whether Pilgrim’s operations could have negative impacts on a nursing mother and newborn calf.Stay tuned to find out how NMFS and the NRC respond to this request.

Mar 4

Another close call at Pilgrim

For the second time in two weeks,  Entergy’s Pilgrim nuclear reactor experienced an “event” requiring notification to the NRC.  The scram discharge volume valve (valve CV-302-22B) failed on March 1, 2013 and February 18, 2013. http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/event-status/event/

According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, “The scram discharge volume is a large metal tank that collects the water vented from the control rod’s hydraulic pistons during a scram. It is sized to contain all the water vented during a scram. CV-302-22B is one of the valves on the drain line from the scram discharge volume. When a scram signal occurs, this valve automatically closes (or is designed to do so, whether it does so is another matter).”

The NRC requires Entergy to make sure this valve is operating as designed because it is a mechanical system that is critical to Pilgrim’s safe operation.  The valve is part of the reactor shutdown system, and must be able to operate during a “scram”.  A scram means for some reason Entergy has to stop the nuclear reaction (the fission that splits the atoms) from happening.

During the February, 2013 blizzard (Nemo) Pilgrim had to shut down twice – that is, Entergy had to stop splitting the atoms. What if the valve had failed then-instead of a mere 9 days later, on Feb. 18?

Pilgrim exceeds industry averages for automatic shutdowns and unplanned power outages.  http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130227/NEWS/302270347

The U.S. NRC says that the valves (called “scram discharge volume piping”) have only a one in a million chances of interfering with reactor shut down.  But, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists, in June, 1980, that is exactly what happened at the Brown’s Ferry nuclear plant in Alabama: that one in a million chance happened and almost caused a nuclear disaster.  http://allthingsnuclear.org/fission-stories-107-mystery-plug/

If Entergy’s valve had failed to operate during one of Pilgrim’s many shutdowns during the last year, there could have been a serious nuclear emergency.

Pilgrim is old and worn out.  It presents an unacceptable risk to our region-and this is just one more example of that.

 

Feb 28

NUKE MATTERS: Long-Term Nuclear Waste Storage at Pilgrim

The following is the fifth in an ongoing series of articles being published in the Old Colony Memorial newspaper of Plymouth and on the Wicked Local website.

By Genevieve Byrne and Meg Sheehan, Cape Cod Bay Watch

Published Feb. 15, 2013

The Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station on the shores of Cape Cod Bay in Plymouth has been operating since 1972. Electricity is only the fleeting by-product of Pilgrim’s operations. Pilgrim’s long-term legacy is the high level nuclear waste generated by 40 plus years of splitting atoms to make electricity. This waste is now being stored on site in a temporary facility that is potentially dangerous.

In May 2012, after a highly contested process, Entergy Corporation of Louisiana was relicensed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to operate for another 20 years. Pilgrim makes more nuclear waste every day it operates. Pilgrim’s nuclear waste has nowhere to go, and will be staying in Plymouth for an indeterminate period of time.

In the 1960s, the Town of Plymouth issued a special zoning permit for Pilgrim. This permit did not authorize a long-term nuclear waste storage facility at Pilgrim. The plan–until recently–was to send the nuclear waste off site to a safer deep geological repository. The federal Department of Energy was responsible for siting and building this nuclear waste storage facility. The site chosen, Yucca Mountain in Nevada, has been cancelled. The nuclear waste at Pilgrim has nowhere to go. Entergy is due to run out of room in its current “fuel pool” and needs a new place to put the irradiated waste fuel. This fuel is at least a million times more radioactive than fresh fuel. So, Entergy is building a high-level nuclear waste storage facility at Pilgrim to store its nuclear waste indefinitely.

Entergy is required to apply for and obtain a special zoning permit for its high level nuclear waste storage facility. As of mid-December, 2012, Entergy had not applied for a zoning permit to build a nuclear waste facility in Plymouth, even though it has openly told town officials it has started construction on this facility. Nor has Entergy received approval for its waste storage facility from the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

The legal doctrine of preemption prevents the Town from regulating the radiological safety aspects of Entergy’s storage of irradiated waste fuel in Plymouth. The Town does have authority to require Entergy to submit a zoning application that includes a schematic plan of the proposed facility, and the exact size, shape and location of all proposed structures. The zoning law also requires an impact statement and public hearing.

Entergy’s construction of a high level radioactive waste facility in America’s Hometown is not a positive development. It is, however, an unfortunate reality. Right now, there are opportunities for the public to get involved. A sound public process with well-informed public input will help guide the permitting and regulatory processes and bring about a better result for our community.

Meg Sheehan is a Plymouth native and environmental attorney. Genevieve Byrne is an environmental attorney working with EcoLaw, a public interest group. Cape Cod Bay Watch is dedicated to protecting and restoring water quality and marine life in Cape Cod Bay through public education, networking, and advocacy.

Click here to read the full article on the Wicked Local Plymouth website.

Feb 27

1 Comment

Another legal avenue closed for Pilgrim safety advocates, but…

…it’s no surprise — and it’s not over yet!

On February 26, 2013, the Massachusetts Attorney General’s office lost a bid to force the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to consider new information about public safety and  environmental risks from the continued operation  of  Entergy’s Pilgrim nuclear reactor. A copy of the U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals decision is here. Mass AG v NRC

The Attorney General tried to argue that Fukushima nuclear disaster revealed new information about high level nuclear waste spent fuel pool fires and core damage events that should be considered before Pilgrim was relicensed for 20 years, beyond its 40 year life.  These “events” would release large amounts of radioactive material throughout the region, with unimaginable consequences.

The Court ruled in favor of Entergy and the NRC, and would not let the AG proceed with the challenge.  No surprise there! Winning a court case against the NRC and the nuclear industry is extremely difficult.  This is because the law that created the NRC, called the Atomic Energy Act, gives the NRC expansive powers to make the rules about who can challenge their decisions. As the Court said, the Atomic Energy Act is “a regulatory scheme which is virtually unique in the degree to which broad responsibility is reposed in the administering agency [the NRC]….” The Act is pro-industry, and the NRC, in making more rules (called regulations) on who can challenge its decisions, has taken that mission to heart: protect the industry, shut out public interest advocates.

In the February 26 decision, the Court said the AG did not meet NRC procedural standards for getting a hearing on the safety issues.  The Court also said the AG was barred from bringing the case under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which requires the NRC to take a “hard look” at environmental impacts.

The Court’s decision does not mean Pilgrim is “safe.”  In fact, the Court said the NRC still has to make Entergy fix numerous defects at Pilgrim, even though Pilgrim was relicensed.  There are three types of defects at Pilgrim the NRC deciding whether Entergy must fix as a result of Fukushima: lack of filtered vents for emergencies,  inadequate ways to figure out the water level in the spent nuclear waste fuel pool, and inadequate core cooling containment.  As we speak, industry is lobbying the NRC to say “no fixes”, claiming they are too expensive and unwarranted. Today, the New York Times wrote about this.  http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/27/business/energy-environment/a-divisive-debate-on-need-for-more-nuclear-safeguards.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&#comments

The NRC isn’t the only one who gets to say how Pilgrim operates, however. State and local officials have a say, too. Entergy must meet state and local environmental and zoning laws.  Admittedly, state and local authority over Pilgrim is limited, but it does exist.  Unfortunately, Massachusetts state regulators are taking a hands off approach on Entergy’s water pollution.  Other officials are looking the other way while Entergy  builds a $165 million nuclear waste storage facility without proper permits.  Vermont and New York officials have been much more proactive in using their state authority to protect the public and the environment from Entergy’s nuclear reactors in those states.

Politicians at the state and federal level are discussing new nuclear waste laws.  In the U.S. Congress today,  Sen. Ron Wyden said he expects a draft nuclear waste bill shortly – http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/285319-sen-wyden-expects-draft-nuclear-waste-bill-shortly  Sen. Wyden said, “I call the nuclear waste issue one of those issues that feels like the longest running battle since the Trojan War, and I think it’s time to get on with it.” Massachusetts state legislators have also announced legislation to deal with Pilgrim. Let’s hope these legislators can “get on with it.”

Meanwhile, back in Manomet, Entergy is refueling Pilgrim in March or April.  This means Entergy is going to bring in more uranium based nuclear fuel rods so that Pilgrim can keep on running — and making even more nuclear waste to sit in those dangerous spent fuel pools that were the focus of the Attorney General’s lawsuit.

Since the NRC’s laws are stacked against them, local residents are telling state and local officials that enough is enough when it comes to the pollution and dangers from Pilgrim.

 Find out more:

www.pilgrimcoalition.org; www.capedownwinders.org; www.pilgrimwatch.org

Feb 20

A nuclear waste dump on the shores of Cape Cod Bay?

Federal, state, and local regulators need to ensure proper regulatory oversight of Entergy’s construction of a nuclear waste storage facility at Pilgrim

Entergy is building a long term storage facility for over 40 years worth of nuclear waste at Pilgrim.  Citizen groups have revealed that this construction does not have proper local, state, or federal approvals.

In February, 2013, citizen groups wrote to the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission asking the agency to enforce its own regulations governing construction of the dry cask waste storage facility.  Letter to NRC on Waste Storage

In December, 2012, the public interest advocacy group EcoLaw asked the town to enforce local zoning laws governing the construction. EcoLaw Letter to Town   The groups also challenged the December 2012 town permit for a retaining wall, saying it was piecemeal zoning, and asked for enforcement of wetlands laws. Town Wall Permit Dec. 2012

In February, 2013, two groups asked the NRC to investigate the possible improper use by Entergy of public decommissioning funds.  Letter to NRC on Funds

Feb 6

Pilgrim Nuclear in Path of Historic Winter Storm

 

During a conference call today, NOAA officials described the impacts of the “historic winter storm” that is due to hit eastern Massachusetts starting Friday, February 8, 2013.  NOAA’s slides are here: NOAA Analysis Feb 6 2013

Entergy’s Pilgrim nuclear reactor in Plymouth, Massachusetts presents an unacceptable risk to the public and the environment during this storm.  NOAA is predicting prolonged power outages, coastal flooding and erosion, and hurricane force winds.

Entergy stores high level radioactive waste at Pilgrim in “wet pools.”  These “spent fuel pools” require water to be constantly circulating to keep them cool.  During a prolonged power outage, the pools could lose power, causing a fire.  This would result in a massive release of radioactive materials that would be devastating to the environmental and the public.  According to an expert for the Massachusetts Attorney General, such a fire could cause $488 billion in damages. Read more here.   Spent Fuel Article For more information on the consequences of a spent fuel fire at Pilgrim: Thompson Report 2011  Thompson Affidavit 2011

Coastal flooding and high tides could also cause Pilgrim’s pumps and cooling water intake system to malfunction.  Pilgrim takes in almost a half billion gallons a day of water from Cape Cod Bay.  If the pumps clog, the reactor operations would be at risk.  During Hurricane Sandy, the nuclear reactor at Oyster Creek came close to a meltdown when the pumps failed.  See more at: http://publicjustice.net/blog/hurricane-sandy-highlights-safety-issues-oyster-creek-nuclear-plant

Pilgrim is simply in the wrong location  –in a hurricane zone, subject to coastal flooding.  With rising sea levels, we can expect more historic storms like this one.  Here’s a link to a map showing rising sea levels in the Boston area.  Pilgrim is not that far away. http://www.tbha.org/preparing-rising-tide-report

When the NRC relicensed Pilgrim until 2032, the agency ignored rising sea levels and the more frequent, severe storms that are predicted.  Pilgrim is a poster child of how climate change is already causing us to rethink decisions about things like where to locate a nuclear reactor.  In 1972, when Pilgrim went on line, the world was a different place.  It’s time to address these issues at Pilgrim.

If Entergy can’t keep the lights on during the Super Bowl, what can we expect at Pilgrim during this historic winter storm and others to come?

Jan 28

What is Wart, the Right Whale, Telling Us?

Wart, an endangered North Atlantic right whale, was discovered in Plymouth Harbor in Cape Cod Bay on January 12, 2013, with her newborn calf.  It has been 27 years since a  right whale mother and calf have been sighted in Cape Cod Bay in January.

 There are fewer than 500 North Atlantic right whales on Earth. Part of Cape Cod Bay is the whale’s “critical habitat” under the federal Endangered Species Act. Wart’s birthing of a calf was probably only the second time this happened in the waters off the Northeast coast.  On January 14, 2012, Wart swam very close to Entergy’s Pilgrim nuclear power station in Plymouth.

 

Courtesy of NOAA
Courtesy of NOAA

Local groups have asked the federal National Marine Fisheries Service to conduct a thorough assessment of Pilgrim’s impact on endangered species such as right whales.  June 2012 Request  Under the federal Endangered Species Act, dumping heated, polluted water on right whales could be illegal.  If right whales were subjected to Pilgrim’s thermal pollution, Entergy could be liable for a $25,000 civil penalty or $50,000 criminal fine for each violation.

Is Wart’s warning us about nuclear safety?

Wart and her calf were unofficially reported within 100 yards of Pilgrim – inside the 500 yard “exclusion zone.” The zone was established after 9/11 to try to prevent a hostile attack on the reactor, which could explode the nuclear waste stored there. There is more radioactive Cesium 137 stored at Pilgrim than was ever released by every nuclear bomb ever exploded in the atmosphere.  An explosion at Pilgrim would have unimaginable consequences.  “Emergency preparedness” in the event of a nuclear accident at Pilgrim is a hot topic in the region.  Maybe Wart wants to know, “what’s the emergency plan for me and my calf’?

WDCS Jan 2013

Wart in front of Pilgrim nuclear, Plymouth MA, January, 2013

Is Wart’s message about climate change?

 

On Inauguration Day, January 21, 2013, Wart was spotted from the shoreline at Pilgrim (this was an unofficial report). The President’s Inaugural Address that day gave climate change center stage. Was Wart here to reinforce the President’s remarks about the need to respond to the threat of climate change?

Climate change and ocean warming presents risks to right whales in at least two ways.  First, right whales usually give birth in warmer waters off Florida and Georgia.  The oceans may be warming up so much that Wart’s instincts are telling her  Cape Cod Bay could be a suitable calving ground – and that Florida and Georgia are too hot. According to Regina Asmutis-Silva, Senior Biologist at Whale and Dolphin Conservation, the “water temperature here is a lot warmer than we would expect this time of year.  And it’s probably closer to April” temperatures.

Second, climate change may be affecting Wart’s ability to get adequate food while in Cape Cod Bay.  Wart needs a specific plankton called a copepod.  This plankton tends to be a very cold-water species.  According to Regina Asmutis-Silva, if the water temperature in the Bay is warm enough for the whales to calf, that could  mean it is not cold enough for the copepods.

World-renown Right Whale expert Dr. Charles “Stormy” Mayo from the Provincetown Center for Coastal Studies echoes concerns about climate change. “The Cape Cod Bay habitat appears to be changing dramatically and there is some question as to whether the habitat change is in response to changes in condition along the entire east coast. There is a real question as to whether this changing environment will be nurturing to mother and calves.”  Read Dr. Mayo’s comments to NMFS here. PCCS 4-13-2012

Is Wart telling us she needs more living space?

In 2009, conservation groups asked the federal government to expand the right whale critical habitat into the Western part of the Bay, near Plymouth. Read the petition here.   Critical Habitat Petition  

In 2010, the government provided a notice as required by law, but has not decided on the conservation group petition yet. See, NMFS Notice   Maybe Wart was asking for a more room to nurse her calf.

Is Wart telling us to clean up our act?

Habitat degradation is one reason the right whale is endangered.  Pollution contributes to habitat degradation.  Entergy’s Pilgrim nuclear reactor is certainly the biggest single industrial polluter on Cape Cod Bay.  It was named one of the “Dirty Dozen” polluters by Toxics Action Center in 2012.  If we want to stop pollution that contributes to habitat degradation for right whales, cleaning up Pilgrim’s pollution is good place to start.

Since 1972, Pilgrim has been using Cape Cod Bay as a dump for polluted cooling water. Pilgrim takes in almost one half billion gallons a day of water out of Cape Cod Bay, sucking in and killing fish, plankton, and small marine life. Since 1972, Pilgrim has sucked in an amount of water equal to the entire volume of Cape Cod Bay. http://www.capecodbaywatch.org/read-more-surface-water/  That water is discharged back into the Bay up to 32 degrees hotter every day Pilgrim operates.  Sometimes Entergy dumps water heated as high as 120 degrees. The “pollution zone” affected by Pilgrim in Cape Cod Bay covers at least four square miles.  May 2012 NMFS Letter  [see page 3: the thermal plume covers 3,000 acres and extends out about 1.3 miles] Entergy is allowed to operate its cooling water system under a Clean Water Act permit that is 16 years old. This permit was last reviewed for it’s environmental impacts in 1991.  

Listening to Wart 

 Groups throughout the region are responding to Wart’s concerns in three ways.

  • Asking U.S. EPA and the state Department of Environmental Protection to put an end to Entergy’s use of its destructive “once through cooling water system.”
  •  Asking National Marine Fisheries Service to better assess the impacts on endangered species, including the North Atlantic right whale, from Pilgrim’s continued operations.
  •  Advocating for strict oversight of Entergy’s plans to build a high level nuclear waste facility in the coastal zone at Pilgrim.  Local, state and federal regulators play a role in deciding what and where Entergy builds the facility.  Local residents are seeking transparency at all levels of the process.

Wart’s appearance in Plymouth, America’s Hometown, is auspicious.  Plymouth is confronted with the legacy of nuclear power that presents an unacceptable health and safety risk, and pollutes the Bay.

It’s time to listen to Wart.

Sources:

News about Wart:

http://www.wdcs.org/news_int.php?select=1394

Fight For Survival: New-born Right Whale In Cape Cod Bay Faces Many Challenges To Survive.

http://www.wdcs-na.org/story_details.php?select=349

Living on Earth, January 18, 2012: Right Whales, Wrong Place

http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.html?programID=13-P13-00003&segmentID=8

 Amount of cesium 137 in Pilgrim’s spent fuel pools:

http://fairewinds.org/content/why-fukushima-can-happen-here-what-nrc-and-nuclear-industry-dont-want-you-know

 Nuclear Safety at Pilgrim:

http://www.pilgrimwatch.org/security.html

« Older Entries

Switch to our mobile site