Summer 2005

The Mississippi

Offsho
re Oil
and G
DuPon p as
t oyste age 1
r pois
Review oning
reveal
& Ana page 1 ed
lysis o
f Econ
pa omic I
Grand ge 4 - 5 mpact
Gulf N
uclear
Yard W pa
aste fr ge 6
om Ce
n
page 8 tral Group
Indus
trial E
xpans
Nomin ion
ations page 9
Open
for Cl
Sierra pa ub Of
Club M ge 9 fices
ississip
pag pi Ou
Delta tings
Nation e 10
al For
page 1 est Outing

Mississippi’s National Park and State

2

Parks Deserve Protection from

Offshore Oil and Gas Development
By Louie Miller, State Director
MS Sierra Club
Would you support oil and gas drilling in
Yosemite National Park? How about Yellowstone
National Park? It is hard to imagine rigs on the border
of two of the nation’s best known national parks.
So why should it be any different for Mississippi’s
National Park, the Gulf Islands National Seashore?
The Gulf Islands National Seashore (GINS),
the number one tourist attraction in Mississippi, has
been described as “the crown jewel of Mississippi,”
and for good reason. The scenic offshore barrier
islands of Horn, Petit Bois and Ship and Cat islands
are pristine wilderness islands that are outstanding
natural treasures.
But now our National Park is being placed
on the chopping block to pander to oil and gas
interests. U.S. Sen. Thad Cochran added a rider on
a U.S. Senate appropriations bill that requires the
Park Service to ignore the usual environmental rules
and regulations governing oil and gas exploration
in National Parks. Sen. Cochran, who has been
an important supporter of the GINS in the past
by wielding great influence to obtain funding for
the purchase of Cat Island, was asked to pass the
legislation by former energy lobbyist Gov. Haley
Barbour.
The governor’s people claim that oil
and gas exploration and production could be
conducted carefully to minimize any environmental
impact. However, in Mississippi there is little
hope of meaningful oversight when the oil and
gas exploration rules have been placed under
the Mississippi Development Authority (MDA).
Their mission is economic development—not
environmental regulation. MDA has no history (or
interest) in being a regulatory agency.
In a nutshell, most normal environmental
safeguards are left out with the recently passed
federal legislation directing the Park Service to
ignore laws such as the Endangered Species Act
and the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
The proposed MDA Mississippi Major
Economic Impact Authority rules and regulations
give the final authority to MDA Executive Director
Leland Speed. For example, a portion of the proposed
regulations dealing with explosives used for seismic
testing says: “Explosive charges no larger than
twenty (20) pounds TNT equivalence and multiple
charges in one shot having an aggregate weight in
excess of twenty (20) pounds TNT equivalence
shall not be used without special permission from
the Executive Director or his designee.”
continued on page 2
DuPont DeLisle
poisons found in
toxic quantities in
Mississippi oysters
Oysters, tasty or tainted, was the headline in
THE SUN HERALD newspaper recently
when the news broke that there is evidence
pollution from DuPont DeLisle has made oysters
harvested in Mississippi waters unsafe to eat.
DuPont DeLisle has for many years produced many
millions of pounds of pollution per year (see www.
epa.gov/tri, zip code 39571) at its titanium dioxide (a
cosmetic product used in paints and other products)
facility on the Bay of St. Louis. It has long been the
biggest polluter in Mississippi, and has been number
one on some national toxic release lists. For example,
it is the number one facility in the country releasing
dioxin like compounds, according to the Toxic Release
Inventory, and scores high on a number of other lists.
The Delisle plant is essentially an ore refinery. They
take a raw ore, illminite, and put it through a high heat,
chlorinated process in order to separate out the titanium
dioxide, which is the finished product used for Oreos,
the white on M&M’s, lotions, sunscreens, toothpaste,
paints, etc. Dioxin is a byproduct of chlorine processes.
Over the years increasing numbers of residents in
the area have become ill or died prematurely. Cancer
has been epidemic, and neuro-muscular problems are
extremely common. And many of the environmental
illnesses are hard to diagnose, which makes treatment
difficult and expensive. About 2,200 people—
including a large number of former plant employees—
have filed individual lawsuits against DuPont alleging
that emissions from the plant have harmed their
health. That case is to be heard in August in Laurel.
Despite widespread illness in the community, the
Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality
(DEQ) and the Mississippi Department of Marine
Resources (DMR), which has a representative on the
Mississippi Permit Board, recently gave approval for
a major expansion at DuPont. DEQ has repeatedly
downplayed the impact of pollution from the plant,
assuring the public that there is no threat to health.
But now there is evidence that pollution from
DuPont has poisoned Mississippi’s oyster industry.
continued on page 3

To explore, enjoy and preserve the nation’s waters, wildlife and wilderness Mississippi Sierra Club www.mississippi.sierraclub.org
 Mississippi’s National Park and State Parks Deserve...
continued from page 1
If jet skis are considered too detrimental for
the National Park, what is the impact of setting off
dynamite charges within the park in order to explore
for oil and gas? What is the impact on endangered
species such as the bald eagle and osprey? In waters
near the park, what impact would the seismic testing
have on dolphins and other marine life such as the
endangered gulf sturgeon?
These regulations proposed by MDA don’t
just apply to the National Park, but also to the 30,000
acres of Mississippi Coastal Preserves and all of
the state parks in Mississippi. We could have oil
and gas exploration and production at Tishimingo
State Park or any of the other outstanding parks in
Mississippi.
There are many economic consequences
possible regarding impacts to tourism. The Coast
has a tourism industry with an annual impact of
$500 million. Currently there are about 70 high rise
condo projects announced on the Coast. The Coast
attracts such development because it provides one
of the last unobstructed views of the Southern
Horizon.
Why jeopardize that? And who will want
to visit a State Park if they have to pass the evening
in the campground next to a noisy rig lighted up AT A RECENT PUBLIC meeting in Biloxi on proposed rules for oil and gas exploration, so many people turned out in opposition
brighter than a Christmas tree? that there wasn’t enough room in the auditorium to accommodate them. About 350 crammed into the auditorium at the
J.L. Scott Marine Education Center May 24 for the public meeting, and about 150 more had to be turned away because of
If you want to see what oil and gas drilling lack of space. (Photo by Maura Wood).
has done for tourism, visit Dauphin Island. There
isn’t a motel or hotel on Dauphin Island that you
and your family would want to stay in. The islands and hasn’t done an adequate job with regulating The state proposes allowing directional
beaches are filthy, noisy and dominated by massive onshore industries. For example, both Chevron drilling to put rigs one mile from the boundary of
unsightly drilling platforms. There is an unnatural Pascagoula and DuPont DeLisle violated their air the parks to suck out any oil or gas reserves found
underneath the islands. There are legitimate concerns
that oil and gas drilling could lead to subsidence,
which is the sinking of the islands. As oil and gas
are withdrawn, portions of the land surrounding
and under the island could sink in order to fill the
vacuum that results. As land subsides, or sinks, the
islands become more vulnerable to “washover”
during hurricanes.
You need look no further than the
neighboring state of Louisiana to view this well
documented geologic phenomenon where many
square miles of Louisiana coast and wetlands are
lost on an annual basis.
There is also no guarantee that the state will
be adequate watchdogs to make sure oil companies
pay their royalties. Next door in Alabama, Exxon
Mobil was fined $11.9 billion for attempting to
defraud the state of Alabama out of hundreds of
million of dollars in offshore oil and gas royalties.
This was the largest punitive damage award in the
U.S. in 2003. Montgomery County Circuit Judge
Tracy McCooey said the company’s efforts revealed
a “concerted, clandestine and multifaceted scheme”
to defraud the state.
Some people have said they support the
Platforms blight Dauphin Island permit emissions limits for a period of YEARS drilling because of high gasoline prices. First, the
before the Mississippi Dept. of Environmental MDA says the reserves are expected to be natural
turbidity (murkiness) of the water. Quality (MDEQ) gave them minor slaps on the gas, not oil. Second, we have to start recognizing
Ship Island Ferry Captain Louis Skrmetta wrist—fines of less than $100,000 amounting to that we can’t drill our way out of the current
takes out many thousands of visitors to Ship Island less than a couple of hours of production value, energy crisis. The U.S. uses 25 percent of the
each year. for significant violations occurring over a period world’s energy, yet only has three to five percent
“They don’t go to Ship Island to view an of years. A recent scientific study has shown that of the world’s reserves. Drilling will not solve the
industrial site with noisy gas platforms like you have pollution from DuPont DeLisle has poisoned area problem, but conservation will. If we reach 40 mpg
off Dauphin Island in Mobile Bay,” says Skrmetta. oysters with heavy metals. Can we realistically as the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFÉ)
The State of Mississippi has no experience expect any better job regulating offshore oil and standard for fleets, which is achievable with hybrid
regulating offshore oil and gas development, gas? continued on page 11

To explore, enjoy and preserve the nation’s waters, wildlife and wilderness 2 Mississippi Sierra Club www.mississippi.sierraclub.org
 Oysters Too Poisonous To Eat???
continued from page 1
What that means is that it isn’t only the mostly low-
income people who live in the rural DeLisle community
that are suffering from decades of toxic emissions from
DuPont. People around the country have been eating
the oysters harvested from reefs near DuPont, and
there is now evidence those oysters are too toxic to eat.
An estimated 491,050 sacks of oysters were harvested
from Mississippi waters in 2004, representing sales
of about $19 million. Close to 99 percent of the
Mississippi oysters come from reefs located south
of DuPont DeLisle. And now an international, peer
reviewed scientific journal, The Journal of Shellfish
Research, has concluded that
pollutants of the type released by
DuPont DeLisle are found in area
oysters in such high quantities
that you can only eat eight-tenths
of one oyster without going over
the FDA recommended limits for
chromium and nickel. Chromium
can cause liver damage, and
is considered one of the top
ten percent most hazardous
compounds toxic to ecosystems
and human health (http://www.
scorecard.org/chemical-profiles/
hazard-indicators.tcl?edf_
substance_id=CMJ500). Nickel
can cause allergic reactions in
about 10 percent of the population. across the Bay of St. Louis in a photo taken in late May.
Arsenic is also a concern. Arsenic
levels in oysters
were 404 percent
higher than seen in
the original study.
Oyster biologist
Ed Cake of Ocean
Springs, one of the
authors of the report,
said that according
to the Food and
Drug Administration
guidelines, people
who eat oysters from
that area should not eat
more than eight-tenths
of one oyster per day.
“The biggest point
that I have about
that is which two-
tenths do you cut out
or spit before you
swallow?” ask Cake,
who challenged the
DEQ and the DMR to
do their own sampling
programs quickly if they don’t believe the results of the
study published in the Journal of Shellfish Research.
DuPont routinely monitors wastewater and
sediments for metals, then forwards the reports to the
DEQ. But it all appears to be an exercise in industry
pollution cover-up at the expense of people’s health
and lives. Despite monitoring that shows a major
plume of lead under the plant, nothing has been done
regarding a cleanup. And despite evidence of sediment
sampling in the bay that shows dangerously high levels
of pollution, the DEQ has continued to be a shield
for DuPont—approving a recent major expansion
without requiring adequate pollution controls.
To explore, enjoy and preserve the nation’s waters, wildlife and wilderness
And the DEQ and the DMR—which for years
failed to sample oysters for the types of contaminants
being released in huge quantities from DuPont
DeLisle—are in the process of planning to sampling
and testing the oysters for the types of contaminants
identified as major concerns in the Shellfish Journal
article. Both agencies have a conflict of interest in
doing the studies, as replicating the results found by
the earlier researchers would prove that both agencies
have failed to protect the public’s health. Groups
such as the DuPont watchdog group Mississippi
Environmental Recovery Alliance have expressed
concerns about these agencies doing the studies
A LONG PLUME OF pollution from DuPont spreads
properly and/or minimizing the risks to the public.
The DMR has long considered its role as one of
promoting Mississippi’s oyster industry. The agency
plants oyster reefs and regulates the industry. The
last thing the DMR wants to do is give Mississippi
oysters a bad reputation. But in this instance, the
protection of public health is far more important.
The DEQ did a dioxin study of fish that was used by
the Agency for Toxic Substances and Diseases Registry
(ATSDR) to make a conclusion that dioxin from
DuPont was of no concern. The DEQ study sample
was too small, the right types of fish weren’t studied,
and the fish were caught just two weeks after a large
3 Mississippi Sierra Club
release of hatchery raised fish into the Bay of St. Louis.
“The ATSDR’s Health Consultation regarding
dioxins at the DuPont DeLisle plant is woefully
inadequate and does not address the health risks of
individuals in the area of the facility,” says Dr. Peter
deFur, an environmental consultant from Virginia
hired by Sierra Club to evaluate DuPont’s recent
expansion permits. “The scope of the study is limited
to dioxin concentrations in air and fish, and is based
on inadequate and seemingly arbitrary data. The
exclusion of soil data in spite of the well-documented
soil contamination issues at the site and the use of
dated dioxin health criteria are particularly troubling.
“Even the very limited fish data that the
agency used in the report were flawed.
Small sample sizes and inappropriate
species selection call into question the
assumptions the agency has made based
on these data. True risks posed by this
pathway are likely to be much higher.”
The DEQ should be requiring DuPont
to eliminate its dioxin production.
Instead DEQ is allowing the facility to
increase production, which increases
pollution all around: air, water, and
deep well injections. The sad fact is that
there are alternative ways of producing
titanium dioxide with far, far lower
emissions. But DuPont shuns the safer
production methods in the name of
corporate profits.
A top DEQ official was
quoted after the oyster study
came out as encouraging
people to continue to eat
oysters until DEQ does its
own study. That was highly
irresponsible. Yes, the study
was funded by the lawyers
representing the people suing
DuPont. But the scientists who
did the study are reputable,
well respected in their fields,
and used proper precautions
to assure the validity of their
study. Using the Precautionary
Principle, these oysters should
be avoided.
The results of the study
show numbers off the chart
compared to levels found in
1978 before DuPont DeLisle
began operations. The
researchers found that the
level of chromium in oysters
was between 7,000 percent
and 11,300 percent greater in oysters in reefs outside
the Bay collected in July 2004.
The Journal of Shellfish Research article
showed that heavy metals and dioxins were highest
in outfalls located closest to the plant. While levels
decrease with distance from the plant, they still
are at levels of great concern. And if oysters are
contaminated, it is probable that fish, crabs, and other
seafood also are contaminated.
The journal article doesn’t identify DuPont by
name, but refers to a “titanium refinery.” DuPont
is the only titanium facility in the area and, indeed,
continued on page 11
www.mississippi.sierraclub.org
 Review and Analysis of Mississippi Major Economic Impact Authority’s
Proposed Rules and Regulations Governing Geophysical, Seismic or
Other Type Exploration on State-Owned Lands
By H.C. Clark, Ph.D.
Consulting Geophysicist
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
T
he Mississippi Major Economic Impact Authority
has issued proposed “Rules and Regulations Governing
Geophysical, Seismic or Other Type Exploration on
State-Owned Lands.” These regulations will govern
seismic and geophysical activities in the Mississippi
Sound, as well as areas on land.
From a practical standpoint, many provisions of
the regulations are vague and unenforceable. Rule 14
further permits any requirement of the rules to be waived
at the request of a seismic operator. There are a number
of concerns associated with seismic exploration in the
marine environment. The scientific literature documents
the potential for harm to wildlife and other resources from
the sound sources associated with seismic. This potential
for harm has led many regulatory bodies to require safety
measures for seismic operations, including observers
and area closures to protect sensitive resources.
The proposed regulations require the submission of
only skeletal information concerning proposed seismic
surveys, and do not require any structured consideration
of impacts on other resources. The regulations do not
require any specific mitigation or protective measures. In
addition, the regulations allow much of the information
concerning seismic operations to be withheld from the
public. At a minimum, the regulations should require
detailed information concerning any seismic survey,
including information impacts to other resources. Before
a seismic operation is approved alternatives including
avoiding sensitive resources should be considered.
Information concerning the surveys themselves, including
locations, should be fully accessible to the public.
DISCUSSION
This discussion was prepared by H.C. Clark, Ph.D.
I am a geophysicist, and live in Houston, Texas. I
taught geology and geophysics at Rice University from
1966 until my retirement in 1989. During that time, I
participated in a number of marine geophysical surveys
and am familiar with the issues involved with these
proposed rules.
I am now a consultant, primarily in environmental matters
and deal with the regulatory framework on a daily basis.
A copy of my curriculum vitae is attached to this report. I
have had the opportunity to review the document entitled
“Rules and Regulations Governing Geophysical, Seismic
or Other Type Exploration on State-Owned Lands.”
It is my understanding that this is a preliminary version,
for public comment, of regulations to be promulgated
by the Mississippi Major Economic Impact Authority.
These regulations will govern seismic and geophysical
exploration in the Mississippi Sound, as well as in other
areas.
1. The Regulations are vague, and largely
unenforceable. An initial observation concerning the
regulations is that many parts are vague and lacking
specificity. This makes it difficult to suggest improvements
or evaluate the potential for the regulations to adequately
ameliorate the potential negative impacts of seismic
exploration. In addition, the lack of specificity means
that many of the requirements of the regulations will be
essentially unenforceable.
Examples include the following:
Rule 7.A.1 purports to limit the size of charge
that may be used to 20 pounds TNT equivalence, but
states that greater charges may be used with “special
permission from the Executive Director or his designee.”
To explore, enjoy and preserve the nation’s waters, wildlife and wilderness
No standards or other guidelines for the decision to
permit larger explosive charges are given.
Rule 7.F purports to restrict explosive use
within 250 feet of oyster beds, but actually allows such
use with approval of the Executive Director. Again,
there are no standards or guidelines, and the Executive
Director’s decision is purely discretionary.
Rule 7.I states that restoration of surface
conditions after seismic exploration is required, but only
“as nearly as practicable.” No definition or other standard
is given.
Rule 7.L contains various broadly worded
requirements, for example that geophysical exploration
will not “cause significant harm or damage to aquatic
life,” or “unreasonably interfere with or harm other uses
of the area.” The requirements are so broadly stated as to
be unenforceable, however.
Rule 8 provides for a “seismic agent” to
accompany geophysical exploration crews, but permits
operations to go forward even if the agent is absent.
The rule also permits a waiver of the requirement for a
seismic agent, but states no standard for granting such a
waiver.
Rule 9.C provides that a person carrying out
geophysical exploration should report activities that
“adversely affect the environment, aquatic life, cultural
resources or other uses of the area”, but provides
no definition or standards, apparently making this
determination entirely discretionary with the geophysical
operator.
Rule 10.F provides that “Vessels, boats,
marsh buggies or other types of marsh vehicles used in
connection with seismic exploration activities must be
so used as to cause minimum disturbance or injury to the
lands, water bottoms and wildlife and fisheries thereon.”
“Minimum disturbance or injury” is not defined,
however.
Rule 10.I provides that activities “may” be
shut down if there is a “threat of serious, irreparable or
immediate harm or damage to life, including fish and
wildlife, other aquatic life, to property, or to the natural,
or human environment.” Under this language, activities
may only be suspended if “serious, irreparable or
immediate” harm is threatened, and even then suspension
is discretionary with the Executive Director.
Likewise, Rule 10.J makes the suspension of
a permit for failure to follow the regulations or terms of
the permit discretionary with the Executive Director.
Finally, Rule 14.B provides for a complete
waiver or modification of any provision of the
regulations, at the discretion of the Executive Director
and the “appropriate supervisory agency.” In effect,
this provision makes every aspect of the regulations
completely discretionary, and subject to waiver.
To summarize with regard to the vagueness and lack
of enforceability, the regulations themselves contain
very little in terms of enforceable protections for natural
resources, and those terms it does contain are subject to
waiver at the discretion of the Executive Director of the
Mississippi Major Economic Impact Authority and any
other supervisory agency.
The Regulations Do Not Provide for Any
Assessment of Natural Resource Impacts, or
Mitigation to Prevent Damage
The proposed regulations do not provide in any
structured way for the assessment of the potential
impacts to natural resources by proposed geophysical
testing. There is a substantial body of scientific work and
federal and state regulation dealing with these issues, but
these regulations do not take account of it.
On land, the issues of concern in seismic testing
focus on the ground disturbance left by shot holes. The
regulations do address this specific issue, at least to the
4 Mississippi Sierra Club
extent of requiring site remediation, but the regulations
do not address, in other than a cursory way, the issue
of impacts to wildlife and other resources in the marine
environment. In the marine environment, most concerns
about seismic testing center around the seismic source.
At its most basic, seismic exploration involves artificially
creating seismic waves directed into the earth, and using
arrays of measuring devices such as seismometers or
geophones to receive and record these waves. There are
a number of different techniques for generating seismic
waves, ranging from explosive charges to compressed
air guns, controlled frequency vibrating pads, high
frequency piezoelectric crystals, etc. Sound levels
created in the water column by these sources vary but
can be as high as 240 decibels, in the case of compressed
air gun arrays.
Each source for generating seismic waves has potential
environmental concerns and impacts associated with it.
For example, electrical sparkers have been associated
with fish kills and are seldom used in modern seismic
operations. Use of explosives has been associated
with other environmental concerns, and as explained
below, the Minerals Management Service (“MMS”) of
the Department of the Interior no longer contemplates
that explosives will be used in Outer Continental Shelf
seismic operations. Compressed air guns have also
raised numerous concerns about their effects on marine
mammals, as well as impacts to fish and other marine
animals.
Physiological and behavioral impacts of sound on fish,
marine mammals and other organisms are documented in
the scientific literature. The nature of the effects depends
on the species, proximity to the sound source, and other
factors. Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada,
Review of Scientific Information on Impacts of Seismic
Sound on Fish, Invertebrates, Marine Turtles and Marine
Mammals (2004). Eggs and larvae could also be injured
or killed by sound sources. Royal Society of Canada,
Report of the Expert Panel on Science Issues Related
to Oil and Gas Activities, Offshore British Columbia
(2003) at 76. Impacts can be particularly acute in marine
mammals, which rely on sound waves for communication
and life functions.
Seismic exploration in areas such as the Mississippi
Sound is of particular concern, since water depths
are much less than those encountered on the Outer
Continental Shelf or other deepwater areas. This means
that sound sources such as compressed air guns may be
only a few meters away from bottom dwelling organisms
or other marine life. Recent research indicates that noise
from seismic sources may be greater than has generally
been thought in shallow water areas. Tolstoy, et al,
Broadband Calibration of R/V Ewing Seismic Sources,
31 Geophysical Research Letters L14310 (2004).
In addition, in shallow water environments the range
of impacts of seismic sources may be greater. Shallow
water environments have the potential for damage to
aquatic vegetation or other sea floor resources from the
equipment used to carry out seismic operations. This
can include vessels, the seismic arrays towed by vessels,
or the equipment used to drill shot holes. The potential
impacts of seismic sources in the marine environment
vary depending on a number of factors, including the
location and type of sensitive resources, the strength
of the seismic signal, the makeup of the water bottom,
water depth and background noise from other sources.
Carrying out seismic operations in a way that protects
sensitive resources involves considering the specific
makeup of the seismic operation, and tailoring protective
measures to the situation. The proposed regulations do
not contain any requirement that these variables be taken
into account.
continued on page 5
www.mississippi.sierraclub.org
 Review and Analysis of Mississippi Major Economic Impact Authority’s
Proposed Rules and Regulations Governing Geophysical, Seismic or
Other Type Exploration on State-Owned Lands
continued from page 4
For example, the proposed regulations do not
distinguish between seismic wave sources, and in
fact seem to contemplate that any technology may be
used. The definition of “energy sources in Rule 1 cites
“[e]explosives, vibrators, weight droppings, confined
explosive gases, air guns, implosives, electrical sparkers,
active transducer, radio frequency transmitters, or other
energy source.” The regulations also do not contemplate
any specific operating or other practices to identify
and avoid or mitigate impacts to sensitive resources.
Particularly in the marine environment, a requirement
that the party carrying out the seismic program use the
least damaging technology available is appropriate. For
example, prior to 1989 the MMS, which manages seismic
operations on the federal Outer Continental Shelf,
routinely required the preparation of an Environmental
Assessment, a document which considers alternatives
to an action and the effects of the action itself, before
allowing the use of explosives. More recently the MMS
has assumed that explosives will no longer be used on the
OCS in light of other technologies with less significant
environmental impacts. Minerals Management Service,
Geological and Geophysical Exploration for Mineral
Resources on the Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental
Shelf (2004), at I-3.
Mitigation measures to protect against harm to marine
life are readily available and commonly employed
during seismic exploration operations. These include the
deployment of trained observers for marine mammals or
other species, “warm up” periods which allow marine
life to leave the vicinity, seasonal restrictions geared
to the presence of sensitive species, area restrictions
protecting sensitive habitats or resources, and choice of
least intrusive seismic array. For example, the National
Marine Fisheries Service has required such measures
in permitting research seismic cruises. Richardson, et
al Marine mammal monitoring and mitigation during
recent seismic surveys for geophysical research, 2004.
In the Gulf of Mexico region the Minerals Management
Service has required use of observers for marine
mammals. United States Department of the Interior
Minerals Management Service, Notice to Lessees 2002-
G07.
By contrast with the practices in use elsewhere,
the proposed regulations do not require information
concerning the potential impacts on marine resources,
and do not require any monitoring of environmental
impacts, consideration of alternatives, or structured
consideration of mitigation measures.
For example, Rule 3.C requires only that extremely
basic information concerning the proposed seismic
survey be provided. There is no requirement concerning
configuration of energy sources, expected decibel
levels, sound attenuation, or other specifics concerning
the survey. Without this information, it is impossible
to determine the actual impacts of a proposed survey
operation.
According to Rule 3.D, an “environmental form”
will be filled out and forwarded to the “Appropriate
Supervisory Agency,” which will then “review its file”
to determine measures to be included in the permit.
There is, however, no indication what information
the environmental form will include, nor is there any
provision for structured analysis of the actual or potential
impacts of the proposed seismic operation. Since Rule
3.C does not require any specific information concerning
the proposed seismic operations, preparing mitigation
measures will at best be difficult.
To explore, enjoy and preserve the nation’s waters, wildlife and wilderness
Rule 10, “Protection of marine life, marine resources, to all surface data from a survey. This would include the
and wildlife management areas,” states in Section G information from recordkeeping
that “permittees conducting seismic operations shall use and reporting discussed above as well as the impact
reasonable precaution in accordance with approved and evaluation submitted with the permit application.
accepted methods to prevent destruction of, or injury to, The regulations also will keep all post-survey
fish, oysters, shrimp and other aquatic life, wildlife or information confidential. It is important that the agency
other natural resources of the State.” Again, however, maintain a database of permitted geophysical surveys
there is no requirement for any particular method, and the accessible to the public. The global positioning system
regulation is so vague that it is essentially unenforceable. [GPS] record of each day’s work should be submitted
In fact, the “seismic agent” contemplated by Rule 8 along with the appropriate calibrated record of each
cannot even unilaterally terminate the seismic operation shot. This information would support Rules 7 A,F,G,H
if a violation of this rule is found to be occurring. and L, for example. This would not be a great burden,
Rule 8.H. In addition to the problems created since the field party typically records this information.
by the seismic source and the related immediate effect The proposed regulations express concerns about
on marine life, any regulations must consider the careless survey practices, and by such recordkeeping
long-term effect of the overall survey operation. The and reporting, anything accidentally left behind, or any
proposed regulations recognize this aspect, and require unfilled shothole could be tracked. This recordkeeping
the operator to remove pipe, clean up shotholes, etc. would also be an advantage to the geophysical survey
Before final adoption, the agency should consider a party seeking to document a careful operation as outlined
matrix of impacts of various surveys on the shoreline, in Rule 7. It would also enhance and simplify the Party
marsh, shallow transition zone, and deeper water. Marsh Chief’s and Seismic Agent’s responsibilities outlined in
buggy tracks remaining from old seismic lines are a Rule 8.D.
familiar and dramatic example of a long-term effect.
As technology has changed, equipment has become CONCLUSION
more compact and deployment more efficient, but the The proposed regulations are vague and unenforceable.
typical survey has changed from widely spaced 2-D The regulations do not contemplate a number of
lines to dense 3-D grids. The permanent effect of a more fundamental potential environmental impacts associated
extensive survey on the bottom in deep water is minimal, with geophysical exploration, particularly in shallow
but the disturbance left by pulling seismometer sets or estuary areas such as the Mississippi Sound. The
streamers through the transition zone or marsh should regulations do not require even a minimal pre-survey
receive careful consideration. This information would impact analysis or detailed exploration plan. Once a survey
speak to the concern expressed in Rule 6 B and 7 F, for is underway, there virtually no specific recordkeeping or
examples. reporting requirements to affirm that the permit holder
3. Survey Information Should Be Detailed and has acted according to sound environmental practices.
Available to Agencies and the Public.
At a minimum, a geophysical survey permit application
should be accompanied by a baseline survey. This survey
should include, at a minimum:
• A topographic or bathymetric map
• Aerial photograph[s]
• Sidescan sonar or an equivalent means to identify
potentially affected reefs, vegetation or cultural
resources
• A description of sensitive resources such as spawning
or recruitment areas for marine life, resident marine
mammal populations, threatened or endangered species,
and parks or wilderness areas.
• A description of the physical means of carrying out the
seismic activity, for example, vessels, marsh buggies or
other equipment
• Maps depicting proposed tracklines, source points,
etc.
• A narrative with plans to minimize impacts and
remediate damage following the survey and aid the
agency involved in the review under Rule 6.B. This
narrative should address the purpose and need for the For an updated list of activities,
proposed seismic activity and alternative methods of
carrying out seismic activity action alerts, legislative news
• A description of cumulative impacts of the seismic and programs of the Mississippi
activity with other activities. Chapter of Sierra Club, see the
This baseline survey should be subject to a full
review by the appropriate agencies, with independent
Web site:
consideration of alternatives. Alternatives considered www.mississippi.sierraclub.org
should include alternative technologies, survey design You can also sign up for a state-
configurations, use of less damaging equipment to carry
out the surveys, mitigation plans including seasonal or
wide action
area restrictions to avoid sensitive resources, and a “no alert list by sending an e-mail to
action” alternative. sierrams@bellsouth.net.
The baseline survey and the agency’s evaluation and
decision on this survey should be available as a matter
of public record. In addition, citizens should have access
5 Mississippi Sierra Club www.mississippi.sierraclub.org
Environmental Study Also Notable for What’s Missing

New Nuclear Reactor in Mississippi May Burden

Minorities and the Poor, Nuclear Agency Says
PORT GIBSON, Miss.—Public interest and action on the independent panel’s recommen- will generate waste that will stay at the Grand
environmental groups have criticized the recent dations for improving security. Other panels, Gulf site indefinitely. There are safer, cleaner,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) such as the 9/11 Commission, have verified and cheaper ways to meet our energy needs.”
environmental review of the possible expansion that nuclear power plants are potential al Qa- The report also postpones an assessment of
of Entergy’s Grand Gulf nuclear plant, calling eda targets. Further, Grand Gulf is guarded by the need for additional generating capacity and
it myopic and incomplete for downplaying the the private security firm Wackenhut, which was alternative methods of providing electricity.
importance of the increased impact a new re- given a contract last June to test security at all In response to a similar application and
actor will have on minority and low-income the country’s nuclear plants; this poses a clear report for new reactors in Virginia, the U.S. En-
populations in Claiborne County and ignoring conflict of interest and prevents a meaning- vironmental Protection Agency (EPA) wrote in
issues of nuclear waste, plant security, and al- ful assessment of security preparedness at the March that it “has concerns with this approach
ternatives to nuclear power. site. Its location on the Mississippi River could since it ignores the justification for the power
The draft report, known as an Environ- make it a strategic target. plant addition in the early stage of project devel-
mental Impact Statement (EIS), notes that “It “Entergy and the NRC need to level with the opment as well as biases the subsequent energy
is not clear how the new nuclear facility would people of Mississippi,” said Wenonah Hauter, alternative analysis toward nuclear power…”
be treated for property tax purposes, so it is not director of Public Citizen’s energy program. The draft EIS only analyzes alternative sites;
clear whether Claiborne County would receive A new reactor poses unacceptable safety EPA believes it should “include an analysis of a
property taxes, sales, and use taxes, or other and security threats the county can’t afford, and continued to page 9
taxes and public monies commensurate with
the costs of its additional emergency manage-
ment and public services obligations. The net GBNERR Plant Field Guide Now Available Online
financial burden may fall on local residents and
BILOXI, Miss. The Mississippi Department of most popular plants and wildflowers seen along
taxpayers, most of whom are minority and low-
Marine Resources (DMR) Grand Bay National the Mississippi Gulf Coast. The guide provides
income persons.” Despite this conclusion, NRC
Estuarine Research Reserve (GBNERR) has visitors to the GBNERR and educators with
staff preliminarily recommend that Entergy re-
just launched its plant guide into cyberspace. color photos and descriptions of several coastal
ceive the Early Site Permit (ESP) it applied for
wetland and terrestrial plants found within the
in October 2003.
protected wildlands of the reserve, along with
“It’s ironic that the staff supports our legal
highlights of selected coastal habitats. Each
challenge on environmental justice that was
page of the book includes a photo and descrip-
dismissed by the Atomic Safety and Licensing
tion of the featured plant species.
Board and NRC Commissioners,” said Paul
The guidebook was created as a joint project
Gunter, director of the Reactor Watchdog Proj-
between the DMR/GBNERR and Coastal Pre-
ect at NIRS. “Granting the permit would be
serves Program and The University of Southern
inconsistent with this finding.”
Mississippi’s Gulf Coast Research Laboratory
Due to a discriminatory tax policy passed by
and J.L. Scott Marine Education Center and
Mississippi in 1986, 70% of the property tax in-
Aquarium.
come from the reactor site is reapportioned by
The online version enables one to download
the state to 47 other counties besides Claiborne
the entire field guide or individual chapters
County – a unique situation among nuclear
as PDF files, which can be read with Acrobat
plants in the U.S. That leaves the only hospi-
Reader. Also, online readers are asked to report
tal in Claiborne County, which is designated in
any errors they find to be corrected in the sec-
the emergency plan, to borrow money to pay
ond printing of the field guide.
its doctors and nurses, and the police and fire
This public document is not for sale, and
department inadequately equipped to handle an
all rights to the publication are reserved to the
emergency. In early 2004, Public Citizen, along
DMR. Copies may be made for educational
with the Nuclear Information and Resource
purposes only.
Service, the Claiborne County NAACP, and the
The Mississippi Department of Marine Re-
Mississippi Sierra Club filed a legal interven-
sources is dedicated to enhancing, protecting
tion in the application process, raising issues
and conserving marine interests of the State by
ranging from environmental justice to security
managing all marine life, public trust wetlands,
to waste. Under the NRC’s streamlined review,
“Selected Plants of Grand Bay National Es- adjacent uplands and waterfront areas to pro-
all of the groups’ contentions were rejected.
tuarine Research Reserve and Grand Bay Na- vide for the optimal commercial, recreational,
The draft EIS does not include an analy-
tional Wildlife Refuge” is available online at the educational and economic uses of these resourc-
sis of environmental impacts of a terrorist at-
DMR?s Web site. Go to www.dmr.state.ms.us es consistent with environmental concerns and
tack on either the reactor itself or the high-level
http://www.dmr.state.ms.us> and select Grand social changes. Visit the DMR online at www.
nuclear waste generated by the plant. A recent
Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve on dmr.state.ms.us http://www.dmr.state.ms.us.
study by the National Academy of Sciences
the left-hand menu. Then, click on Botanical
identified spent nuclear fuel as a significant se-
Field Guide. Photo Courtesy of Mississippi Department of
curity risk, but Entergy has not agreed to take
The 112-page book includes some of the Marine Resources.

To explore, enjoy and preserve the nation’s waters, wildlife and wilderness 6 Mississippi Sierra Club www.mississippi.sierraclub.org
Plans proceed to build second nuclear power plant in Port Gibson
Studies show much higher cancer
and infant mortality rates near
nuclear power plants
E Entergy Corp., as part of a coalition
of power companies called NuStart Energy
Development LLC, is currently seeking an early
site permit to build a second nuclear reactor at
Grand Gulf Nuclear Station in Port Gibson. The
U.S. Congress is currently considering giving
billions of dollars in government handouts to
subsidize the development of more nuclear
power plants in the U.S.
Three other potential sites selected
by NuStart Energy Development LLC in the
South: Bellefonte Nuclear Plant in Northeast
Alabama, owned by the Tennessee Valley
Authority; River Bend Nuclear Station, St.
Francisville, La., also owned by Entergy; and
the Savannah River Site, a Department of
Energy facility near Aiken, S.C. Two northern
sites are Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant
in Lusby, Md., owned by Constellation Energy,
and Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station in Scriba,
N.Y., owned by Constellation Energy.
There have been concerned expressed
by local residents about high infant mortality
rates and cancer rates near the Grand Gulf
Nuclear Station. Those concerns appear to
have validity according to a study done by
Dr. Ernest Sternglass of the University of
Pittsburgh that suggests that infant mortality
increased significantly in 2002, after operating
capacity at 104 nuclear power stations reached
its highest levels.
The Sternglass study suggests that
infant mortality increased significantly in
2002, after operating capacity at 104 nuclear
power stations reached its highest levels.
“The nuclear industry and the NRC have
automatically dismissed all studies that link
increased cancer risk to exposure to low levels
of radiation,” said U.S. Rep. Edward Markey
(D-MA), a senior member of the House Energy
and Commerce Committee, the panel which
oversees nuclear power regulation. “The reality
is that the data suggest that we should be taking
this potential linkage much more seriously.”
Rep. Markey has sent a letter to the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
regarding health risks for communities who
live close to nuclear reactors. Markey letter
was motivated by the ordeals of the Sauer
family, former residents of Minooka, IL, which
is located close to the Dresden nuclear power
plant. The family has recently relocated because
To explore, enjoy and preserve the nation’s waters, wildlife and wilderness
of concerns about the health impacts associated
with living near the Dresden plant, which were
heightened because of their daughter’s brain
cancer.
In June 2003, the NRC was presented
with data obtained from the Illinois Department
of Public Health (IDPH) that indicate that in
Grundy County, IL, between 1995-99, the
infant mortality rate has doubled, there has
been a nearly 400% increase in pediatric cancer
and a 38% increase in cancer among those aged
In June 2003, the NRC was presented with data
obtained from the Illinois Department of Public
Health (IDPH) that indicate that in Grundy County,
IL, between 1995-99, the infant mortality rate has
doubled, there has been a nearly 400% increase
in pediatric cancer and a 38% increase in cancer
among those aged 28-44 years old (while the same
statistic for all of IL decreased by 8%).
28-44 years old (while the same statistic for all
of IL decreased by 8%).
Moreover, other statistics show that
the incidence of leukemia was 50% higher in
men and 100% higher in women in Grundy
County than it was in the rest of the state. In
its responses to the Sauers, NRC personnel
have ignored these statistics and have instead
cited a 1990 National Cancer Institute
(NCI) study entitled “Cancer in Populations
Living Near Nuclear Facilities”, which has
numerous flaws in design, since, as the
authors themselves stated, the limitations in
the design were accepted so that “it could be
completed in a timeframe that was relatively
short for a survey of such magnitude.”
In addition to the Sauer case, Rep.
Markey’s office has been made aware of
additional studies and data:
*The Sternglass study data released
data at the American Association for the
Advancement of Science meeting in
Washington, D.C., indicates a spike in infant
mortality that occurred in 2002, coming after
operating capacity at 104 nuclear power stations
reached its highest levels and increased at the
7 Mississippi Sierra Club
highest rate in the U.S. between 1997 and
2001. His work also refers to a scientific paper
indicating that low levels of radiation exposure
during pregnancy is directly related to low birth
weight which, in addition to infant mortality,
has also been implicated in numerous
chronic diseases, including autism, asthma,
cognitive dysfunction, rheumatoid arthritis,
anemia, obesity, heart disease and cancer.
*A 2003 article by Joseph Mangano
et al in Archives of Environmental
Health found elevated levels of childhood
cancers in populations living within 30 miles of
nuclear power plants between 1988-1997. For
example, in Plymouth County, MA (near the
Pilgrim Power plant), there was found to be a
14.6 percent increase in the numbers of childhood
cancers as compared to the rest of the country.
And in Essex County, MA and Rockingham
County, NH (near the Seabrook Power plant),
there was found to be a 24.8 percent increase
in the numbers of childhood cancer mortalities.
“The NRC needs to study – not
summarily dismiss - the connection between
serious health risks and radiation released
from nuclear reactors. I am urging the agency
to investigate these risks, and I will continue
to closely monitor the NRC’s progress in
this important area,” Markey concluded.
For a copy of the letter sent to the NRC,
please see www.house.gov/markey. For more
information on the cradle-to-the-grave health
problems association with nuclear power
production, see the web site for the Nuclear
Information Resource Service (www.nirs.org).
www.mississippi.sierraclub.org
 Oppose Nuclear Reactors in Mississippi! Central Group works
Important Public Meeting June 28 to promote yard
waste recycling
By Brendan Hoffman, Organizer, Nuclear Energy & Waste, Critical Mass Energy and Environ-
In early 2005, the Central Group of the Mississippi
ment Program, Public Citizen, p: 202.454.5130,
Chapter began looking into yard waste programs.
bhoffman@citizen.org, www.citizen.org/cmep We felt that there is a need for improved collection
and recycling of yard waste in the metro-Jackson

T
area, but we didn’t have many details about
he energy giant En- current programs and potential opportunities for
tergy has asked the U.S. improvement. We also felt that this was an area
Nuclear Regulatory that we could help make significant performance
Commission (NRC) for improvements through the actions of our group.
a permit to site two new Simply put, this is one opportunity to make a
difference.
nuclear reactors at the
company’s Grand Gulf
To begin to understand the current situation,
Nuclear Plant in Port
we assigned members to perform research on
Gibson, Mississippi - what is currently being done with yard waste in
right on the banks of the the area, and what is being done in other cites
Mississippi River. That of comparable size throughout the U.S. Then
makes the state a guin- at meetings, members presented the results of
ea pig in testing new li- their investigations. Presented below are some
censing procedures and highlights from the reports.
new reactor designs,
since no nuclear plant City of Jackson
has been built in the • Currently serves about 55,000
U.S. since the 1970s. households
• Charges about $15 per month waste fee
In addition to suffering per household
from the same five fatal • Sends municipal garbage to BFI Little
flaws nuclear power has Dixie Landfill
always had-cost, safety, • All curbside bagged and bundled yard
security, proliferation, waste meeting pickup standards is
and waste-new reactors collected with routine collection and
in Mississippi will pose landfilled
a unique burden on the • Has a Christmas tree chipping program
local population be- for trees dropped off at collection points.
Chipped tree mulch is then made available
cause of unjust tax laws.
to the public while supplies last. Trees
Unlike any other power
left at curbside are put in the garbage
plant in Mississippi or
truck and landfilled.
any other nuclear plant • Loose leaves scheduled to be picked up
in the U.S., property by vacuum truck in November through
tax revenues from the February. However, residents report that
Grand Gulf plant in pickup is rare; therefore the leaves are
Claiborne County must placed in bags and sent to the landfill.
be shared with 44 other Mississippi counties served by Entergy. That means the local government • Leaves picked up by vacuum truck are
doesn’t take in enough revenue from the plant to cover expenses necessitated by having the plant in taken to a City facility near Byram and
the first place, such as extra police officers, fire fighters, and a fully-staffed and equipped hospital. composted. Compost is available free
The dangers posed by that situation extend well beyond the county line. to residents year round, but users must
load compost themselves by hand due to
Mississippi and the country don’t need the health, economic, and environmental dangers posed by liability issues associated with the City
nuclear power. Cleaner, safer, cheaper alternatives do exist; we can’t afford to waste any more time loading private vehicles.
or money on nuclear power if we ever hope to realize a sustainable and wise energy future. The • Provides free curbside recycling to 100%
fate of new reactors at Grand Gulf may well be the fate of proposed new reactors throughout the of its households. Recyclables include:
Southeast. newspaper, magazines, phone books,
plastic containers, aluminum and steel
TAKE ACTION! The best way to register your opposition is at a public meeting hosted by the cans
NRC on June 28, 2005, in Port Gibson, MS. We’ll bring signs, banners, and stickers, and if you’re • Operates a permanent Environmental
so inclined there will be an opportunity to give brief comments. The more people that speak out Service Center (ESC) open Tuesdays,
against new reactors, the better, so mark your calendar today! You can also submit comments in Thursdays, and the fourth Saturday
of each month. This facility takes
writing up until July 14 instead of or in addition to comments you might give at the meeting.
household hazardous waste materials
(The availability of this facility is an
Read Public Citizen’s fact sheet on why new reactors will be a burden on Mississippi at http://ti-
outstanding service to the community
nyurl.com/e23kh. For more information, visit http://www.citizen.org/cmep/grandgulf. as compared with the once per year
continued on page 11
To explore, enjoy and preserve the nation’s waters, wildlife and wilderness 8 Mississippi Sierra Club www.mississippi.sierraclub.org
Industrial
Expansion:
Profit vs.
Public Health
By Brenda Songy, Gulf Coast Sierra Club Chair
Industry. It is the economic backbone upon
which this country’s prosperity relies. Chevron
Texaco [Chevron] has done much for South
Mississippians in its quest to fulfill this country’s
demands for energy. And as national demands
for consumption grow, so must production.
The Mississippi Department of Environmental
Quality [MDEQ] held a hearing on Thursday, April
14 at the Pascagoula Fairgrounds on a proposed
permit to allow Chevron to expand its output of oil
refining capacity by up to 500,000 gallons a day and
unfortunately its output of hazardous emissions.
But at what point should public health be
sacrificed for profit? Or, more accurately, to
what extent should public health be sacrificed?
Presumably the Mississippi Department of
Environmental Quality [MDEQ] is responsible
for keeping a healthy balance between economics
and ecology. Unfortunately, as more former
energy lobbyists have acquired positions of power
within government, MDEQ has increasingly
acquiesced to corporations’ request for millions
more tons of pollutants in our air, land and water.
At a time when the American Lung Association
has given the Gulf Coast an “F” in air quality, when
asthma, autism, and children’s chronic illness rates
are at an all time high, and when the National Cancer
Institute ranks the Mississippi Gulf Coast as having
some of the highest cancer rates in the country, it is
time to put a moratorium on pollution expansion.
Despite these obvious threats to public health and
many years of South Mississippi not meeting federal
EPA standards of attaining standards of ozone
pollution, corporations such as DuPont and Chevron
are continuously given the nod by MDEQ to add yet
more health burdens to our families’ environment.
The Sierra Club Mississippi Chapter
commissioned a detailed technical review by the
environmental assessment firm Alex J. Sagady
& Associates to analyze the proposed Chevron
expansion application. What they found is
that Chevron is attempting to circumvent the
intentions of the Clean Air Act by requesting
tons more emissions, but falling just short of
being required to put on best available control
technologies to protect the public’s health. It’s like
leaving two squares of toilet paper on the roll so
you’re not obligated to change it for the next guy.
For example, according to the Chevron
application, the company is requesting 99.5% of the
nitrogen oxide emission threshold and 98.2% of the
carbon monoxide threshold allowable for a minor
modification by law. A couple more percentage
points would federally mandate the company to
spend millions to use the most expensive “filters”
to ensure public safety as well as require additional
monitoring of air quality. And while the corporation
will say this is a ceiling they do not plan to hit,
Chevron has not set a precedent for staying within
To explore, enjoy and preserve the nation’s waters, wildlife and wilderness
its limits. Last year, the company was fined $70,000
by MDEQ for exceeding its air pollution limits. The
result of the violations was about 178 tons more smog
forming nitrous oxide per year than was allowed
with their last expansion. Furthermore, Sagady &
Associates has determined that Chevron has failed
to properly show all of its emissions increases,
rendering the proposed permit unable to be approved
because of the company’s incomplete application.
At a time when energy companies are
setting record profits (their CEO boasted over
$7 billion in profit in 2003), Chevron can
afford to help south Mississippi improve its air
quality grade. Is a “D” too much to aspire to?
While much more technical information was
included in the 27-page report, some noteworthy
omissions in Chevron’s permit to MDEQ include:
Limited plans for monitoring its planned
catalytic cracker expansion which include
ammonia emissions estimated at 92 tons per
year and hydrogen cyanide discharges of 17.5
tons annually; no estimate of volatile organic
compounds and organic hazardous air pollutant
emissions from the largest vent from the catalytic
cracking unit which are considered hazardous; and
downstream production rate increases at several
refinery units which were not taken into account.
While the Sierra Club is an advocate of
corporations which seek to bring economic viability
to a community, profit must not come at a cost to
public health. Furthermore, Chevron’s request is
an economic conflict with rising health care costs
(according to the American Lung Association, the
annual cost of chronic pulmonary disease alone is
$3.19 billion) as well as our fishing and tourism
industries. Do we desire to look like the coasts of
Mobile and New Orleans which are littered with
industry? Or do we want to maintain a moderate
amount of industry mixed with a healthy dose of
environmental preservation? Chevron is familiar
with the state-of-the-art technologies it should morally
require itself to install to maintain this balance. And
it is currently in a financial position to do so.
Ideally, conservation by individuals as well as
corporations should take precedence above ever-
increasing rates of consumption. We stand ready
for discussions with all parties involved. In the
meantime, The Mississippi Chapter Sierra Club
will continue to advocate for essential local,
regional and national air pollution protection to
ensure that industrial neighbors are not sacrificing
the surrounding public to benefit.
9 Mississippi Sierra Club
Nominations
open for club
offices
Nominations are being sought for
candidates to run for election to the MS Chapter
Sierra Club executive committee, and to the
executive committees of the Central, Gulf
Coast and Golden Triangle groups.
Nominations are open for members
to serve on the group and chapter executive
committees (excom) of Sierra Club in
Mississippi. Terms are for two years.
Excom members help with planning
and carrying out activities such as meetings,
outings, working on conservation campaigns,
attending public hearings, responding to
requests from the public for help, and raising
funds for our programs. Excom members also
represent the chapter at regional and national
meetings. Currently a new chapter delegate to
national Sierra Club is needed to attend two
meetings per year in San Francisco.
To nominate someone for the chapter
or group excoms, call or e-mail one of the
following: Coast Group, Becky Gillette,
bgillette@bellsouth.net, 228-872-3457;
Central Group, Doc Hicks, 601-898-1826,
ghicks@medicine.usmed.edu; and Golden
Triangle Group, Michael Berk, mberk@sarc.
msstate.edu, 662-323-2528.
The deadline for nominations is
November 15. Ballots will go out in the
December newsletter.
Nuclear Reactor
continued from page 6
wide array [of] alternatives not just alternatives
of different sites.”
“If the current analysis puts off or ignores
all the difficult questions about security, waste,
and alternatives, what exactly does it tell us?”
asked Brendan Hoffman, organizer with Pub-
lic Citizen’s energy program. “The early site
permit process is designed to create artificial
momentum toward eventual construction and
operation of a nuclear reactor while giving the
false impression that environmental questions
have been fully resolved.”
To read the NRC’s draft Environmental Im-
pact Statement, visit: http://www.nrc.gov/read-
ing-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1817/in-
dex.html
For more information, visit http://www.citi-
zen.org/cmep/grandgulf
www.mississippi.sierraclub.org
 Top EPA official testified against
his own agency in wetlands case
Editor’s note: The following is a press release
from Public Employees for Environmental
Responsibility. Jimmy Palmer is a former
executive director of the Mississippi Department
of Environmental Quality.
WASHINGTON, D.C.--Jimmy Palmer,
the top U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
official for the Southeastern U.S., recently testified
against his own agency in a criminal trial on behalf
of a former developer client, according to trial
testimony released today by Public Employees
for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). Palmer
testified that he considered EPA to have been
“unethical,” heavy handed” and on a “crusade to
destroy” his former client, who was then found
guilty on precisely the grounds cited by EPA* and
disputed by Palmer.
Palmer was selected by President Bush
to oversee EPA operations in the eight-state
Southeastern Region in October 2001 and was
sworn in following Senate confirmation the
MISSISSIPPI STATE CHAPTER
Rose Johnson, ExComm Co-Chair
Becky Gillette, Co-Chair
Jim Garner, Central Group Rep
John Schneider, Golden Triangle Rep
Ann Somers, ExComm, Treasurer
Howard Page, Coast Group Rep
Michael Berk, ExComm
Jamie Mixon, ExComm
Louie Miller, Field Staff, Legislative Director
CENTRAL GROUP
Ken Ruckstuhl Executive Committee Chair
Melissa Bryant Executive Committee Vice Chair
Denise Krause Executive Committee Secretary
Doc Hicks Executive Committee Treasurer
John Dant Executive Committee Outings Chair
Don Potts Executive Committee Director
Jim Garner Executive Committee Director
Ann Somers Membership Chair
GOLDEN TRIANGLE GROUP
Juliet Tang, Chair
David Cross, Vice Chair
Lois Connington, Treasurer
John Schneider, Chapter Rep
Frances Thompson* Starkville
Harold Thompson** Starkville
Davis Mounger, Conservation Chair
* Ex Comm, two year term, ends Dec. 2005
** Ex Comm, two year term ends Dec. 2006
GULF COAST GROUP
Brenda Songy, Group Chair
Howard Page, Vice Howard Page, Vice Chai r
Becky Gillette, Treasurer
Jeanne Lebow, Executive Committee
Steve Shepard, Executive Committee
Pat Kulick, Executive Committee
Christopher Verdery, Outings Chair
To explore, enjoy and preserve the nation’s waters, wildlife and wilderness
following January. At the time of his selection, resisted earlier enforcement efforts.
Palmer was the lawyer for a Mississippi developer “After reading this transcript, the only
named Robert Lucas who sought Palmer’s help in question is when did Jimmy Palmer stop representing
subdividing land and installing septic tanks in a developers,” asked PEER Executive Director Jeff
2600-acre development called Big Hills Acres. Ruch, noting that EPA has yet to veto a single
In March 2005, after a jury trial, Lucas was development project for wetlands violations, or any
convicted for misrepresenting the habitability of the other reason, during Palmer’s tenure.
lots and installing septic systems in saturated wetland In his official capacity as EPA Regional
soils at Big Hill Acres, despite warnings from the Administrator, Palmer now has before him more than
state Department of Health that doing so created a a score of questionable mega-projects that would
public health threat. Lucas also ignored numerous destroy thousands of wetlands acres in endangered
warnings, as well as cease and desist orders, from species habitat in order to build projects such as
both the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and EPA gated golf-course luxury condominium complexes.
because the deteriorating systems threatened to Palmer has signaled that he will greenlight every
contaminate the local drinking water aquifer. project, despite concerns about violations of the
At the trial, Lucas called Palmer as a defense Clean Water Act and other environmental laws
witness. Palmer, testifying on his own time under that Palmer and his agency are supposed to be
subpoena, confirmed his role in advising Lucas in enforcing.
how to sell lots for development despite official “Jimmy Palmer never met a development
cease and desist orders. Palmer also admitted that he project that he did not like,” Ruch added. “Even
regarded EPA staff as “unethical” and overzealous today, Palmer routinely takes calls from developers’
in enforcing the Clean Water Act and aggressively lawyers and directly intervenes to ‘fix’ cases over
the objections of his increasingly frustrated staff.”
OUTINGS
228-863-3677
228-872-3457
601-824-5999
662-323-5277
601-355-1895
228-604-1673 Mississippi Chapter of the Sierra Club
662-323-2528 - Central Group Outings Schedule
662-323-5975
601-352-1026 July 23, 2005 Summer Sierra Party
– Jackson, MS
Yes, we have brought back the mid-summer HOW TO KEEP
COOL party. We will make and enjoy Homemade Ice Cream
601-992-5439
with an off-road Frisbee Golf Tournament afterwards. Our base
601-362-8176 of operations will be at the home of Jim & Ann Somers, 1606
Pinevale Street, adjacent to Meadowbrook, between I-55 and
601-898-1826 Ridgewood. Ice Cream making will start at 2:00. Contact Ann
Somers (asomers@cdfl.com / 601-362-1195) for additional
information.
601-824-5999 September 23-25, 2005 Backpacking – Sipsey
601-362-1195 Wilderness, William Bankhead National Forest
This will be an overnight camping and backpacking trip in
GOLDEN TRIANGLE GROUP Sipsey Wilderness Area, Decatur, AL. Friday through Sunday.
Contact John Dant (jdant@cdfl.com / 601-898-7467) for
662-465-8767
additional information.
662-465-8767
662-324-2594 October 1, 2005 Geology & Astronomy Trip
662-323-5277 Geologic Tour of the Red Hills Lignite Mine. Ackerman, MS and
662-323-7379 Star Gazing at the French Camp Observatory, French Camp,
MS. Day trip. Contact John Dant (jdant@cdfl.com/601-898-
662-323-7379
7467) for additional information.
662-323-7379
Saturday, June 18, at 10:30 a.m. The Friends of Mississippi
Public Lands will host a camping/hiking excursion through
one of our state’s great wild treasures, the lower portion of
the Delta National Forest. Please contact Davis Mounger at
wdmounger@yahoo.com or 662-320-6645 for more information
228-818-4973 and to confirm a spot.
228-604-1673
228-872-3457 The Coast Group of Sierra Club will not have its regular
228-873-0508 monthly fourth Wednesdays meeting in June and July due to
holidays. The meetings will resume August 24 at 6:30 p.m.
228-872-0508
at the Ocean Springs Yacht Club. A potluck is followed by an
228-875-5261 environmental discussion. More info: 228-872-3457.
228-875-5261
10 Mississippi Sierra Club www.mississippi.sierraclub.org
DuPont DeLisle...
continued from page 3
the only major industrial polluter. So unlike cases
elsewhere in the country where polluters successfully
evade responsibility by saying the pollution causing
illnesses came from another industrial neighbor,
DuPont DeLisle has no such out.
“It seems likely that the titanium refinery is the
most significant source of the dioxins found in the St.
Louis Bay,” the Shellfish Journal article said. “Such
compounds could enter the bay by several pathways,
including fallout from airborne emissions as well
as fugitive emissions from surface-water runoff or
discharges.”
This isn’t just a problem for Mississippi.
Over the past five years, the following numbers
of sacks of oysters have been harvested in THIS PLUME OF POLLUTION coming from DuPont DeLisle was photographed in late
Mississippi and shipped throughout the May after a long period with little rainfall. Cloudy discharge such as this can be
country: 2000 - 410,903; 2001 - 380,231; 2002 very harmful to sea grasses by not allowing adequate sunlight for photosynthesis.
- 388,091; 2003 - 391,635; and 2004 - 491,050. It can also harm fish and crab eggs.
The Sierra Club asked Dr. Cake for recommendations
regarding eating oysters. He said that restaurants and and avoid those harvested from Mississippi waters. www.mississippi.sierraclub.org.
stores are required to provide customers with point-of- For continuing information on this critically
origin records if asked. So if you want oysters that are important story, check for updates on the web site,
tasty rather than tainted, find out the origin of the oysters

Protection from Offshore Oil
and Gas Development
continued from page 2
cars, that would eliminate the need for offshore
oil and gas development and our dependence on
Middle Eastern oil.
Proponents of offshore oil and gas drilling claim
it could produce up to $200 million per year in
royalties for the state. However, with the state giving
away hundreds of millions in corporate welfare to
wealthy corporations like Northrop Grumman—one
of the wealthiest defense contractors in the world-
-wouldn’t Mississippi be better off just conserving
the minerals underneath the islands?
There is a solution that would provide money
for cash strapped Mississippi without risking the
islands and the Coast’s tourism industry. Other
states have had the federal government purchase
mineral rights under National Parks in order to
protect the parks by removing the threat of drilling.
With Sen. Cochran as head of the powerful Senate
Appropriations Committee, with his support a
federal buyout of the state’s mineral rights would
be a major win for the State of Mississippi.
This would provide money up front to the education
trust fund in one lump sum rather than “gambling”
on possibly discovering and extracting oil and gas
reserves five to ten years from now. This idea is
not new; the Bush Administration appropriated
$235 million to purchase mineral rights under Big
Cypress National Preserve in Florida in 2001 and
2002. To contact Sen. Cochran, send a letter to
113 Dirksen Office Building, Washington, D.C.
20510, or an email to senator@cochran.senate.gov.
His phone number in Gulfport is 228-867-9710;
Oxford, 662-236-1018; Jackson, 601-965-4459;
and Washington, 202-224-5054. Why preserve the
islands? Besides the obvious impact from tourism,
the islands protect buffer the mainland from
hurricanes. But the worth of the islands really can’t
be measured. In the modern world where noise
and traffic congestion dominate the lives of most
working people, being able to escape to a pristine
wilderness islands for recreation and relaxation is
an experience beyond measure.
As Mary Anderson Pickard, the daughter of
famed Coast artist Walter Anderson, said recently
To explore, enjoy and preserve the nation’s waters, wildlife and wilderness
at a rally on the Coast against drilling, “We need
our islands desperately.”
For more information, see the web site www.
gulfislandsconservancy.com or Mississippi.
Central Group works to
promote yard waste...
continued from page 8
HHW collection days that some other
municipalities provide.)
Minneapolis, Minnesota
• Provides a $7.00 per month deduction
from the monthly household solid waste
bill for households participating in the
curbside recycling program
Baton Rouge, Louisiana
• City picks up “woody waste” curbside
once per week. A private firm composts
and sells the material as “Nature’s Best”
organic soil. This program diverted
76,000 tons of yard waste from the landfill
in its first three years of operation.
Athens, Georgia
• City charges yard waste fee based on
volume for curbside pickup at each
household
• Residents can save money by dropping
off materials at the composting facility
Spokane, Washington
• Landfill space is $98/ton (this is more
than 3x the cost in Jackson); yard waste
disposal facility charges $35/ton
• Promotes and provides training and
certification in home composting; this
can save residents a lot of money
What lessons have we learned so far in this
exercise? For one, the City of Jackson is doing
11 Mississippi Sierra Club
sierraclub.org. To be added to an email list on drilling
issues (or to join a statewide environmental email
news list), send an email to sierrams@bellsouth.
net.
a pretty good job with some of its solid waste
and recycling programs, but there is room for
improvement, especially with its loose leaf
collection program. Publicity is needed to increase
the use of compost from the Byram facility.
Homeowner education is needed to increase
onsite composting. Our landfill capacity is being
decreased by disposal of yard waste that can be
more ecologically and economically disposed of
by composting or other means. The City needs
to develop a better system for segregated pickup
of woody waste and handling that material at a
rubbish disposal site or composting facility.
As a group we’ll continue to work on
improvements to the Jackson area yard waste
programs. Join us for discussion of this and other
exciting projects at our monthly meeting on the
second Thursday of each month at Hal & Mal’s
at 6:00 pm.
Factoid: Nationally, yard waste makes up
12.2% of the municipal solid waste stream. This
number has decreased from about 14% ten years
ago due to increased household composting and
mulching mowing. (Source EPA)
www.mississippi.sierraclub.org
 Non-Profi t
Organization
U.S. Postage
PAID
Permit No. 329
Jackson, MS
Mississippi Chapter Sierra Club
P.O. Box 4335
Jackson, Mississippi 39296-4335

Consider donating to the Sierra Club in your will. Go online to www.sierraclub.org for details or talk to your financial counselor
601-359-1026 - MS Sierra Club

Delta National Forest Outing Planned June 18

Saturday, June 18, at 10:30 a.m. the large, remote tracts, such as the Louisiana Congressional delegation.
Friends of Mississippi Public Lands will host a Black Bear. Wilderness protection for these
camping/hiking excursion through one of Wilderness designation would bring wild areas of the Delta would greatly help
our state’s great wild treasures, the lower a heightened profile to the district that it in preserving our state’s conservation
portion of the Delta National Forest. deserves. Wilderness recreation has brought heritage. Outdoor loving Mississippians
Rich in biological diversity, wildlife, millions of dollars to communities in the should visit these unique lands and
and some remaining West and the discover what the Delta’s bayous, lakes,
old cypress, this area Appalachians, and forestland have to offer. Come join
is now the center and this could us on this wild adventure and learn more
of a campaign be so for the these great lands and how we may work
for Wilderness lower Delta. to protect them.
preservation. As Mississippi has The adventure begins at 10:30. After
more and more the lowest a brief introduction, we will split into two
of Mississippi’s wild amount of groups. One group will begin canoeing
areas give way to protected down the Little Sunflower River from the
development, it is time wilderness in landing on Dummy Line Road. The canoe
for us to recognize the the National trip follows the southern border of the
few remote places Forest system. district, before turning into the mouth of Six
that are left. This is The only other Mile Bayou and canoeing to where the Six
particularly urgent Wilderness in Mile Bayou Trail ends. Meanwhile, others
in the Delta, where the state lies will hike and explore the Six Mile Bayou
few large areas of in the DeSoto. Trail, which goes through the heart of the
forestland remain. Were these two area.
While states in parcels in the The two groups will meet at the end
the West have millions Delta to receive of the trail and take lunch together. The
of acres of wild Congressional two groups will then switch places, with
country, we must act Wilderness the canoers hiking back to the trailhead
if we are to save even designation, it and the hikers canoeing back to the
this tiny fragment would make landing. This gives people the opportunity
of our conservation one percent of to experience two great recreational
heritage, so that our state’s 1.1 opportunities. Those who wish to only hike
future generations million acres or only canoe are free to do so. We want
can have a hint of of National a head count of how many are coming to
“the wild” without Forest land be able to have enough canoes available
having to leave home. protected. It is for those who wish to take that part of the
Wilderness areas allow for camping, hiking, time for these lands to get the attention trip. Lunch will be provided. We should be
hunting, fishing, and horseback riding, they deserve. finished by 3-4:00, giving plenty of time to
while preserving the wild character of the The process for designating get home.
land by protecting them from logging and Wilderness often begins with the Forest What to Bring: Extra snacks or drinks.
motorized vehicle use. Service conducting a Wilderness study. Bug spray for those who need it (it is the
The importance of protection for The Forest Service, which is in the midst Delta). Cameras and plant ID guides are
these areas is great. Due to the relatively of revising its management plan, needs certainly encouraged. If you are bringing
undisturbed nature of these areas and to hear citizen support for a Wilderness your own boat, let us know. Firsher-people
their proximity to the Panther Swamp NWR, recommendation by the agency. Rep. may certainly bring their gear.
this forestland has outstanding potential for Bennie Thompson, who represents the Delta Please contact Davis Mounger at
the reintroduction of species that require district, is also key in making this legislation wdmounger@yahoo.com 662-320-6645 for
possible, as is the rest of Mississippi’s more information and to confirm a spot.

To explore, enjoy and preserve the nation’s waters, wildlife and wilderness 12 Mississippi Sierra Club www.mississippi.sierraclub.org