REGULATORY MELTDOWN

Kyle Rabin

Nuclear plants' new owners aren’t New Yorkers

Albert Einstein once urged that the facts about atomic energy must be carried "to the village square." From there, he said, "must come America’s voice." As we know, the proposals for nuclear power plants were never put to a vote or a public debate, although public outcry did prevent the Nixon Administration and the nuclear industry from reaching their ambitious nationwide goal of 1,000 commercial nuclear reactors by the year 2000. Today, 103 licensed commercial reactors are operating in the United States. Six of them are in New York and, if current trends continue, they will all soon have out-of-state owners and operators with questionable safety records. These owners will be bent on squeezing shareholder profits from New York State ratepayers, who will be stuck paying billions of dollars to cover past investments (stranded costs). The companies most active in pursuing reactors in New York are Louisiana-based Entergy Nuclear, Inc., and AmerGen Energy Company, LLC, a multinational joint venture between Philadelphia Electric Company (PECO) and British Energy (BE).

In early February, a coalition of 40 local, state and national environmental, energy and public health groups assembled by Environmental Advocates (EA) called on Gov. George Pataki and members of the State Legislature to protect New Yorkers from the environmental and economic dangers of nuclear power in a deregulated market. The specific concern was the sale of two reactors by the Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation (NiMo) and New York State Electric and Gas (NYSEG) to AmerGen. Groups joining with EA, including Pace Law School Energy Project, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Nuclear Information and Resource Service, and the New York Public Interest Research Group, criticized the proposed sale as a threat to the public interest and called on the state Public Service Commission (PSC) to complete a full public review of issues associated with the operation of nuclear power plants in competitive markets prior to any consideration of their sale.

Motivating the groups’ concerns about safety are fears that cost-cutting under competitive market conditions could jeopardize the safe operation of New York’s nuclear power plants. For example, British Energy, AmerGen’s parent company, has been criticized by the United Kingdom’s nuclear power regulatory agency for threatening public safety by reducing the workforce at nuclear facilities it owns in England and Scotland.

CALIFORNIA DRIVING

Jason Babbie

In mid-November, Governor Pataki took a bold step in his clean air initiative and announced that New York would adopt California's automobile emissions standards, the nation’s most stringent, and promote alternative technology development.

All automobiles sold in the United States must meet either federal or California air emissions standards. According to the 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments, any state not meeting the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone smog can opt into the California program if it gives the auto industry two years lead time. In December 1999, both the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) released their automobile emission standards to take effect in 2004.

The California (CAL LEV II) and federal (Tier 2) programs require similar emissions caps. Both programs regulate hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide, which contribute to global warming; and nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulate matter, which are respiratory irritants. But the federal program is more flexible than California’s, offering more levels of emission standards. Tier 2 also defines those levels less stringently: a vehicle can be certified by meeting one, but not all, of the emission standards for a particular category. Sport utility vehicles are also given two additional years to meet the federal emission standards. The EPA program’s flexibility will allow more pollution in the short-term, but will come closer to CAL LEV II emissions levels over time.

The major difference between the two is that CAL LEV II establishes sales mandates to push technology and the production of more advanced vehicles. Under California's program, 4 percent of all cars sold must be zero-emission certified and 6 percent must be classified as superior ultra-low emissions vehicles. California also holds diesel-fueled vehicles to the same standard as gasoline powered automobiles. Under Tier 2, there are no sales mandates and diesel standards are more lax.

If enough states adopt CAL LEV II, then auto manufacturers will produce more of the cleaner cars. Massachusetts was the first state to adopt California’s program. Since California, Massachusetts and New York combined comprise 25 percent of the market, manufacturers are likely to design most vehicles to meet CAL LEV II standards. At least a quarter of the national market will also have a zero emissions vehicle (ZEV) mandate. As more states adopt the California standard, the market share for cleaner and non-polluting cars will grow, which will increase the incentive for manufacturers to design cars to meet the more stringent standard.

Four Ways You Can Support Environmental Advocates

Membership: Membership donations are the bedrock of EA's work.

Giving at the Office: Gifts through Earth Share of New York, a workplace giving program, can be dedicated to EA.

The EA Endowment: Your gift ensures a healthy financial base for our program work.

Planned Giving: Extend your spirit of giving beyond your lifetime by remembering EA in your will or insurance policy.

All gifts are fully tax-deductible. Please call Patti Kelly at 518.462.5526 ext.224 if you'd like more information.

DIRECTOR'S CHAIR

Val Washington

Just the word "superfund" evokes strong reactions from those who have felt its impact over the past two decades. In fact, the word carries so much baggage for those involved in the current debate over the state superfund that whenever it is uttered pulses race, neck veins bulge, nerves tense and, for some, profound ennui sets in.

The baggage, of course, is a 20 year history that has impacted a lot of people where they live, literally and figuratively. Those who have been chased by the government to spring for the cleanup of a superfund site feel unfairly punished for doing something that was legal when they did it: putting toxins into the ground. Those who live near these sites feel variously frightened - and sometimes made ill - by the contamination, frustrated as they wait for cleanup and cheated by the loss of their property and community values. Business interests are huffy about the taxes and fees they have had to pay to fund government cleanups when there is no responsible party to do it. Environmentalists are concerned that thousands of sites that haven’t made the superfund list, and hundreds that have, are continuing to leak into our groundwater. And there are those who simply find the issue tedious: it is just, well, old news - haven’t we solved all this yet?

But it has to be resolved. And soon. Superfund is running out of money and there is a growing realization that thousands of contaminated sites not on the superfund list, known as brownfields, are an increasingly serious problem from any number of perspectives: environmental justice, sprawl, urban vitality, business opportunity and, of course, the environment. Unfortunately, the baggage is a huge impediment to success. It is hard to carry on a productive conversation much beyond the introduction of the subject. The emotions are too big, the positions too dug in and the politics too partisan.

There are a number of visions out there waiting to be viewed and debated. The Governor has included his bill, first introduced last June, as part of his proposed budget, making it part of the fiscal debate - a tactic we disagree with and hope does not serve to exacerbate the current gridlock on the issue. Assembly Environmental Conservation Committee Chair Richard Brodsky and Assemblymember Pete Grannis both have superfund reauthorization bills. Brodsky and Assemblymember Roanne Destito have brownfields bills, as do Assemblymember Jeffrion Aubrey and Senator Carl Marcellino. And, as our readers know, Environmental Advocates is a member of the non-partisan Brownfields Coalition which has just released its own legislative proposal for a community-oriented superfund/brownfields bill.

It is time for the historical factions on this issue to open themselves up to the novel possibility of getting beyond long-held positions, emotional resistance to understanding another point of view and, most crucially, partisan politics. The debate must proceed, and the quality of the debate will dictate the quality of the outcome.

GARBAGE TIME

Loopholes in state law let recycling programs go to waste

Residents of Amsterdam, a small city in the Mohawk Valley, recently learned that their carefully separated household waste was being legally tossed into municipal garbage trucks and hauled off to a private landfill with the rest of the trash.

Most New Yorkers would say such a scenario is impossible. After all, recycling is state law, isn’t it? But in November, the Amsterdam Common Council voted to suspend municipal recycling pick-ups, claiming that the sorting done by residents was all that was required to satisfy state law, even though that work would then be undone at the curb by city employees. The state Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) reluctantly agreed. And, although the state Attorney General is refuting that such a loophole exists, Amsterdam’s story stands as a cautionary tale for all New Yorkers: it reveals basic flaws in state solid waste policy and shows how vulnerable recycling programs are to political whim.

Amsterdam officials claimed recycling had to go because city taxpayers couldn’t afford it; markets for recycled goods, they said, had gone so sour that it was no longer economically feasible to pick up the sorted material. The city currently sends all its trash to a private landfill in Seneca County.

It is true that the marketplace. for recyclables has been somewhat volatile in the last few years. Most sectors of that market remain strong, however, and some are even favorable to municipalities. The price that can be obtained for mixed wastepaper, for instance, has doubled in the last year. One of the largest consumers of recycled paper in the Northeast, Encore Paper, in South Glens Falls, says it is willing to hear from communities that want to explore markets for their recyclable paper. Encore is New York's largest independent recycler for the manufacture of paper towel and tissue products. (Company representatives told Albany Report that municipal officials interested in exploring markets for their recyclable paper should contact Amy Putnam at FAX # 518-745-0064.)

Obviously, something other than market volatility is behind Amsterdam’s attempt to dump its recycling program n the 1980s, New York passed the Solid Waste Management Act in response to the garbage crisis created by the overdue abandonment of the environmentally dangerous trash system of local dumps. The Act left localities free to set up their own waste systems, within certain guidelines. One was the inclusion of a recycling component in any municipal waste plan. Many local officials, who in those days suffered from a "waste disposal mentality" - a commitment to burying or burning as the only solutions to garbage - insisted that recycling should only be required for materials when economically feasible. The disposal mentality still exists among officials and, when it comes to waste management, the vast majority of public resources go to feeding landfills and incinerators. Five years ago, the three-county waste consortium that includes Amsterdam laid off 100 workers and dropped its recycling program, leaving individual communities in the region on their own for handling recyclables. The real culprit in this demise is not failing recycling markets, but rather the long-term disposal contracts that require municipalities to provide an ever-increasing, guaranteed number of tons of waste to landfills and incinerators. Amsterdam, like many other New York communities, is locked into such long-term disposal contracts. For the disposal-oriented politicians who arranged those commitments, the temptation to add sorted recyclables to the mix in order to meet those guarantees is often too much to resist.

New Yorkers are committed to recycling, and the State Legislature needs to provide assurance that recycling programs are strengthened and expanded, not undermined. Efforts will be underway during this legislative session to reform the Solid Waste Management Act. Recycling, particularly of materials for which reliable markets exist, should be mandatory, and that mandate must be enforceable. New goals for waste reduction and recycling, and methods for evaluating the achievement of those goals, need to be a part of the new legislation. A tune-up of state policy is required to prevent the unfortunate scene in Amsterdam from being recycled throughout New York State.

EA IN SHORT

Bugged Out

Last fall’s aerial spraying for encephalitis-bearing mosquitoes in the New York City region highlighted significant gaps in the preventative public health infrastructure of many of the affected municipalities. A variety of planning efforts are now underway to better prepare for the coming spring and, ideally, to ward off a repeat of last season. With these in mind, Environmental Advocates, the New York Public Interest Research Group and the New York Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides have released a white paper, Towards Safer Mosquito Control in New York, describing the pesticides used last fall and the basic tenets of least-toxic preventative mosquito control. The groups also call on the state and local health departments to closely evaluate the adverse side effects of the spraying and its effect on the encephalitis outbreak itself. Aerial spraying has been demonstrated to be ineffective at checking some mosquito-borne disease outbreaks and a close analysis of the spraying relative to the course of the West Nile outbreak is essential to effectively control any future outbreak.

A Great Notion

Environmental Advocates is supporting a Sierra Club campaign to breathe new life into an old idea. First proposed more than a decade ago by the Adirondack Council, the Great Oswegatchie Canoe Wilderness -- also know as the Bob Marshall Great Wilderness -- is a vast 400,000-acre tract in the West Central Adirondacks. It encompasses Lake Lila and the recently acquired Little Tupper Lake Whitney property. If properly protected, it would become the largest roadless wilderness area in the Northeast. To get involved, contact EA or the Sierra Club Northeast Regional Office at 518-587-9166.

What a Site

Keep track of the latest developments in the Capitol by checking the Environmental Advocates' Website. All memos in support of or opposition to environmental legislation introduced on Assembly or Senate calendars are instantly posted. Find out about the organization's year 2000 legislative agenda or read Executive Director Val Washington's testimony on the Governor's proposed budged. Read the recently released report Towards Safer Mosquito Control in New York, the 1999 Voters' Guide, or catch up on the latest issues of The Green Sheet and Albany Report. And why not register for this year's Earth Day Lobby Day now? It's just a click away at: www.envadvocates.org.

~ IN MEMORIAM ~

Aymas Ames

The family and friends of Environmental Advocates lost a beloved and generous friend last month with the death of Amyas Ames, the father of our board president, Oakes Ames. He was 93.

"Amyas Ames was a wonderful friend to this organization," recalls Assistant Director Patti Kelly. "He was a member of our Advocates Circle and whenever we needed help he went out of his way to support us."

"It's exhilarating to see a family tradition of environmental activism and leadership in public service and the arts," says Blaikie Worth, a longtime member of the EA board of directors and chair of the board’s development committee. "We are very lucky to have Oakes as our president and grateful for the values shared with his father."

Amyas Ames was an investment banker who devoted decades of his life to the arts and the environment. He was an avid environmentalist and photographer, with a particular love of Martha’s Vineyard. Most notably, he was board chairman of both the New York Philharmonic and Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts. In a 1970 New York Times interview, at the time of his appointment to the Lincoln Center post, Ames said he wanted to "tie the performing arts into political developments, into the fight to improve the quality of life, the quality of the environment in our cities." During his tenure he is credited with launching the New York Philharmonic’s free concerts in the parks series, which continues to this day. His book, "The Private Lives of Our Natural Neighbors," a collection of his photos and essays, was published in 1980.

Mr. Ames was born in Massachusetts. His father was a Harvard University biologist, and his mother was an artist and musician. His grandfather, Oliver Ames, had been governor of the state. His final years were spent at a retirement community in Lexington where, true to character, he designed and oversaw the creation of a nature trail through the wooded grounds accessible to elderly people with limited mobility.

KERI ON

EA's senior staff member pursues new challenges

Keri Kresler began working for the Environmental Advocates door canvass in September 1991. Later, she became director of the organization's phone canvass, and then membership director, a post she held until last month, when she left to devote full time to earning a political science degree at the State University at Albany.

When I started, the source of our funding was primarily through the door canvas. Amy was hired to explore foundation grants, and that became a huge source of funding. That's why all the program staff were hired. Emphasis became more on foundation grants. And running a door canvas is expensive.

REGISTER TODAY FOR EARTH DAY LOBBY DAY 2000!

With the World celebrating the 30th Anniversary of Earth Day this year, a coalition of local, state and national environmental groups has come together to make this year's Earth Day Lobby Day the most successful yet. And with every member of the New York State Legislature up for election this fall, it is important to tell our representatives that New Yorkers want to know what they are doing to protect the environment. Join hundreds of activists from across the state in Albany on April 10 as we lobby on issues including pesticide neighbor notification, energy conservation, genetically modified foods, jet skis, superfund/brownfields and children's environmental health.

In addition to direct constituent lobbying of elected officials, Earth Day Lobby Day will feature presentations by environmental leaders and the chance to question state policymakers. Pre-registrants will receive additional information prior to the event.

To make getting to Albany easier, buses are being organized from around the state. Registration is $5, but is free for students and those on limited income. For more information about registration, transportation or organizing materials, visit our Website at www.envadvocates.org, or contact Laura DiBetta at Environmental Advocates: 518-462-5526 ext. 221.