Feeds:
Posts
Comments

This is a reprint of an article that ran in the Houston Chronicle submitted by Air Alliance Houston, the Sierra Club, the Environmental Defense Fund, the No Coal Coalition, Public Citizen and Greenpeace.

Here’s the situation: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has “go” or “no-go” decision- making power on a project that could greatly impact all Houston area residents and future generations.

Here’s the ask: In addition to denying a permit for the proposed White Stallion coal plant, USACE Chief Fred Anthamatten and Galveston District Commander Col. Christopher Sallese are urgently encouraged to call for an Environmental Impact Statement that would lend transparency to a currently deficient process. Likewise, the Corps should also be receiving similar requests for this Environmental Impact Statement from Houston Mayor Annise Parker, City Council members and other concerned citizens as decisions made today could have a profound impact on lives tomorrow. We urge our local elected officials to write Anthamatten and Sallese requesting such a study.

For those not familiar with the situation, if White Stallion gets approved, it could dramatically increase smog levels in the Houston-Galveston-Beaumont region, which is already in “nonattainment” of federal ozone standards.

In 2008, White Stallion owners filed for an air pollution permit that ultimately attracted opposition from Matagorda County local citizens, county officials and clean air advocates. Even the administrative law judges reviewing the application found flaws and recommended permit denial. Ignoring the recommendations, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) gave its approval late last year, spurring our local Houston-Galveston Area Council to write a letter asking for assurances that the proposed plant wouldn’t affect our region.

As if that wasn’t enough, new facts have come to light calling previous points into question. Six days after TCEQ gave its approval, White Stallion filed a new and different site plan for the same power plant in support of its permit application to the Corps. This new site plan changes the location of 73 of the 84 pollutant emissions points used in the air dispersion modeling upon which the final TCEQ order was based.

The plant predicts emissions of 10 million tons of carbon dioxide, 4,955 tons of sulfur dioxide, 4,047 tons of nitrogen oxide, 1,792 tons of particulate matter and 96 pounds of mercury every single year. But now no one — not the state, not the Corps and certainly not the residents – knows specifically where that pollution would be coming from.

With this latest development, Matagorda County and Houston-Galveston-Beaumont residents and industries are entitled to new hearings on the matter as well as an Environmental Impact Statement. These changes should require White Stallion to demonstrate that its proposed plant will not undo years of efforts by local industry and residents to clean up our air. Indeed, these changes should require White Stallion to go back to square one.

Think about it. The Matagorda County-based plant may not be in our backyards, but it’s awfully close – just 20 miles outside our nonattainment area. That’s close enough to undo years of efforts to clean up Houston air. Why not, at the very least, require White Stallion to do its homework?

This is a critical opportunity for Anthamatten and Sallese to do the right thing and show citizens that our federal processes are open and transparent.

They have it within their power to call for an Environmental Impact Statement examining what these changes mean for the Houston area, and we respectfully implore them to do so.

Texas coal-burning power plants – especially those fueled by lignite – could face closures under proposed national standards for coal emissions of mercury and other toxins unveiled by the Environmental Protection Agency.

The standards, which are far tougher than the electric power industry had anticipated, could lead to the shuttering of several coal units in Texas which are currently out of compliance with the new rules.  Can you say “GRANDFATHERED?”

A key issue centers on the “Mercury and Air Toxics Rule,” which the EPA estimates would reduce mercury from power plants by 91 percent, several existing Texas power plants emit so much mercury that a retrofit would not be economically feasible.

Tom “Smitty” Smith, director of Public Citizen Texas, estimated that at least 11 coal units in Texas would likely close if the ruling stands. Retrofitting lignite plants, in particular, could cost between $800 million to $1.2 billion each.

Specifically we believe that Big Brown, Monticello and Martin Lake plants owned by Luminant in East Texas would be on the target list, along with units at American Electric Power, Texas-New Mexico Power and the San Miguel plant outside San Antonio.

NRG Energy Inc., a Houston-based power company, said it’s engaged in a company-wide program to reduce their environmental impact across their existing fleet, coupled with investments in clean and renewable technologies including solar, wind, and the electric vehicle infrastructure. 

In this instance they did not mention their nuclear program or their current license application to expand the South Texas Plant from two units to four units.  But what PR person would given what is happening in Japan?

Even as the Japanese attempt increasingly frantic tactics to cool an overheated nuclear complex:  

  • U.S. officials warned the situation is deteriorating and challenged the Japanese government’s assessment of the radiation risks telling U.S. civilians and military personnel to stay at least 50 miles from the facility, in contrast to the 12-mile evacuation zone set by Japan.
  • The Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Gregory Jaczko told lawmakers that the U.S. believed the damage at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power complex was even graver than Japanese officials had outlined in public; and
  • U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu told those same lawmakers that he believed a “partial meltdown” had occurred at the Japanese nuclear power plant and that the accident was “more serious” than the 1979 partial core meltdown at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania.

In the meantime, Jonathan Silver, executive director of the Energy Department’s loan guarantee program affirmed that it will continue to finance nuclear projects in the United States during a presentation he made today at the Cleantech Forum conference in San Francisco.

Mr. Silver’s remarks followed Congressional testimony in Washington by Energy Secretary Steven Chu and Gregory B. Jaczko, chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. In the same testimony that cautioned the situation at the Fukushima Dai-ichi plant was more serious than Japanese officials were saying,  Dr. Chu said that the Obama administration continued to support nuclear energy, noting the president had requested that $36 billion be appropriated for the nuclear loan guarantee program.

The loan guarantee program has come under fire from all sides, with Congressional Republicans, questioning whether the department has spent its money wisely and moving to cut funding for the $71 billion program.

An audit released last week by the Energy Department’s inspector general found that poor record-keeping made it difficult to evaluate some loan decisions.  This is especially concerning when considering the high capital cost and high default rate of nuclear projects both here at home and internationally.

NRG’s South Texas Project (STP) proposed expansion near Bay City, TX is high on the list of projects being considered for a federal loan guarantee under this program.  Many of NRG’s financial partners on this project, Toshiba, Tepco (the operators of the doomed Fukushima Dai-ichi plant) and the Japanese government (through loan guarantees)  are probably looking at considerable contraints in being able to make substantial financial investments in projects outside of Japan for the foreseeable future.  Taxpayers should be concerned about issues with loan guarantee program’s ability to adequately assess the risks of their loan decisions.

The U.S. should immediately halt subsidies and instead focus on developing solar and wind power.

Take Action on Nuclear Subsidies

The administration must take off the blinders, look hard at what is going on in Japan and realize that yes, a catastrophe can happen here.

On last night’s Rachel Maddow Show, Ms. Maddow provided some interesting information about how much radioactive fuel might be on site at the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant.  We’ve provided a quick overview below, but the show’s presentation and graphics are much better than what we can provide.  Click here to watch the segment on “How much radioactive material is at the Fukushima plant?”

Chernobyl180 tons of fuel exploded into the atmosphere

 

Nuclear fuel believed to be on site at Fukushima Dai-ichi**

 

No. 1

No. 2 No. 3 No. 4 No. 5 No. 6

Common spent fuel pond located somewhere on site

Reactor Fuel

70 tons

90 tons 90 tons * 90 tons 90 tons

130 tons

 
Spent Fuel Pools***

50 tons

100 tons 90 tons 130 tons 160 tons

150 tons

Unknown

Total

120 tons

190 tons 180 tons 220 tons 250 tons

280 tons

1,240 tons

*       Reactor No. 3 is reported to have reprocessed fuel which means there is a mixture of uranium and plutonium in the fuel rods.

**     This information was reported by HKN News Japan, and was verified by MSNBC through Japanese and American nuclear experts as being their best estimate of the nuclear fuel on site at Fukushima Dai-ichi.

***   The spent fuel is less hot and less radioactive than the reactor fuel in the core, but without knowing how old the spent fuel rods are there is know way to know what the total radioactivity house at the plant is.

Back in January, Texans For A Sound Energy Policy (TSEP) filed formal legal contentions with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) urging denial of Exelon’s application for an Early Site Permit (ESP) for a proposed nuclear power plant site south of Victoria, Texas.

Yesterday, TSEP appeared at a hearing before a three-judge panel of the Atomic Safety & Licensing Board (ASLB) to press its legal and scientific arguments.  This is the first NRC proceeding since onset of the ongoing Japanese nuclear disaster. 

TSEP argued that nuclear power is a high risk, high stakes business, and that the events in Japan must be paramount in the board’s determination of the suitability of the site for the construction of one or more nuclear power reactors – a determination that includes both safety concerns and environmental impact concerns.  TSEP believes that this site is neither safe nor environmentally acceptable and that the key to preventing nuclear and environmental disasters is to address site selection honestly, openly and comprehensively.

From a safety perspective, TSEP has raised four proposed contentions and noted, from the outset, their concerns with the cavalier attitude of Exelon, and a process that appears designed to deliberately obscure key safety issues regarding the site from the public.

TSEP said that their perception is that Exelon believes that it does not matter if there is faulting, hundreds of oil and gas wells, toxic gas and methane and inadequate water supply as long as the power block itself is not directly affected.  Additionally, there is a total disdain for any instability and uncertainty of the geologic platform for the proposed facility which is silt and clay riddled by fractures and oil and gas penetrations.  That coupled with the fact that there is co-location with toxic and explosive gas  poses potential dangers to the safe operation of a nuclear

TSEP believes good engineering can address many potential safety issues, but that we cannot engineer around issues that are not recognized, studied and evaluated.

In light of what the Fukushima Dai-ichi plant is dealing with, water – which has been a major environmental concern – now shows itself to be a major safety issue.  According to Jim Blackburn, the attorney representing TSEP,

Exelon’s proposed plan includes a cooling pond that is clearly crossed by two and potentially four subsurface faults.  These faults clearly threaten the stability of the cooling pond.  Exelon does not deny this but instead argues that it does not matter if the cooling pond fails because it is not a safety feature.  It seems that the Japanese situation suggests that a reserve supply of water may in fact be a major safety issue.  Without the salt water to pour on the core as a last resort, the situation in Japan would already have been worse.  There is no such fall-back plan here.  The cooling pond would function as a last resort facility, but it may in fact be breached and drained, assuming sufficient water to fill the pond at all.

Click here to watch a segment of the Rachel Maddow Show for information on spent fuel pools.

We hope the NRC will slow some of these license approvals and re-licensing applications down until they have had time to evaluate what worked and what didn’t work when backup systems fail. 

The ASLB will be reviewing and deciding which contentions put forth by TSEP will be heard in a licensing hearing later this year.

I’ve just spent the past few days in a dizzying whirl of activity around SXSW Interactive (or SXSWi)- between ACT Lobby Day yesterday and Monday testifying in/monitoring 3 committees on 7 bills, it was tough to make it to everything I wanted, but over the weekend I had some really amazing experiences.

SXSW logoBy far, the most positive thing I’ve seen here was SXSW had a panel organized on the fly- all about how to help Japan. I knew we were discussing it in different places, but in less than 48 hours from tragedy striking, there were some of the best minds in tech and thought leaders from various industries working together to make disaster relief a priority:   sxsw4japan.org: How You Can Impact Earthquake Relief Absolutely amazing to me the good will and nature of people willing to come together to help complete strangers halfway across the globe. We are blessed to live in such a time.

One of the best panels I went to was Why My Phone Should Turn Off the Stove. Continue Reading »

The tragic events unfolding in Japan demand a re-examination of U.S. nuclear policy.  While stocks in nuclear plummet and nuclear industry lobbyists scramble on Capitol Hill to shore up support for massive federal subsidies to kick-start the stagnate industry, concerns regarding the existing aging fleet are surfacing and should be heeded.  Click here to read more about specific concerns about some of the aging US nuclear fleet.

Amazingly, despite emerging concerns about existing and proposed reactors, the Obama administration has said it will not back off its plans to further prop up the nuclear industry through increased taxpayer-backed loan guarantees and the inclusion of nuclear power technology in the administration’s clean energy standard. The administration has included $36 billion in loan guarantees in its budget proposal for fiscal year 2012. Instead, it should immediately halt subsidies and instead focus on developing solar and wind power.  Take Action on Nuclear Subsidies

The administration  must take off the blinders, look hard at what is going on in Japan and realize that yes, a catastrophe can happen here.

San Antonio’s electric utility, CPS, has halted their negotiations on a power purchase agreement between CPS and STP’s expansion units 3 and 4.  CPS’s CEO, Doyle Beneby, announced that CPS and NRG have mutually agreed to terminate their PPA negotiations at this point. 

It would appear that the issues facing NRG’s Japanese partners (including Tepco, the beleaguered owners of the doomed Fukushima nuclear plant) are giving everyone pause in their relentless pursuit of the STP expansion.

Major US news agencies reporting a hydrogen explosion at Fukushima Dai-ichi No. 2 may have breached the containment vessel. Tepco, the Japanese company that owns this plant has evacuated operators from the area.  There are reports of elevated radiation levels in the area near the plant.
This plant just had its license extended in February.  South Texas Plant (STP) is in the process of extending its license for its 22 year old units 1 and 2.
Check national news sources for breaking news.

Robert Singleton, an anti-nuclear activist and writer, is calling for a moratorium on new nuclear reactors, license extensions.  Robert  is a member of Solar Si Nuclear No in Austin, Texas.  Click here to read Robert’s blog.

As of today, several countries have announced intentions to review their nuclear power policies as a result of the unfolding drama in Japan.

Investors dumped Japanese shares Monday, sending the Nikkei down 6.2% amid concerns about a nuclear emergency in the country following Friday’s devastating earthquake and tsunami, with stocks of exporters and plant operators hardest hit.

Analysts say stocks were being largely driven by the quake-related news flow; while news of the devastating tsunami effects in northeastern Japan waned.  Fears spread amid the scramble to contain meltdowns at Tokyo Electric Power’s (Tepco) troubled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant as investor attention remained riveted on the No. 1 and No. 3 reactors at the facility, which were damaged by the effects of the quake and tsunami. Selling accelerated in the afternoon following a new explosion at the No. 3 reactor, similar to the one that hit the No. 1 reactor on Saturday.

Tepco’s shares went largely untraded, closing down 24 percent. Goldman Sachs also lowered its rating on the stock to Neutral from Buy and cut its target price 13 percent.

Between Tepco and Tohoku Electric Power, some 15 nuclear power units are in questionable status.

Hitachi and Toshiba, which make nuclear power technology, both sank 16 percent.

Why is the economic news of these Japanese companies of interest to Texas?

Nuclear Innovation North America LLC (NINA), the nuclear development company jointly owned by NRG Energy, Inc. and Toshiba Corporation, are the major financial partners in the two new nuclear units at the South Texas Project (STP).  Last year they announced they had reached an agreement with Tokyo Electric Power Company (Tepco), that owns the Fukushima Daiichi, to also partner in the STP expansion.

NINA was also counting on the Japanese government to provide loan guarantees to the project.  So, of the major financial investments in this Texas nuclear expansion, three are Japanese.  One can easily predict that both the Japanese government and Japan’s nuclear industry’s economic future are going to be tied up for the foreseeable future.  Given this, it would be mind-boggling if the U.S. Department of Energy approved a loan guarantee for STP’s expansion.

The word “meltdown” goes to the heart of the big nuclear question – is nuclear power safe?  Richard Black,  Environment correspondent with the BBC News tries to answer this question and address questions about what is happening at the Fukushima Daiichi plant.   Click here to read the BBC article.

One issue he does bring up is that Fukushima Daiichi is bound to raise some very big questions, inside and outside Japan including here in Texas.

Last year Nuclear Innovation North America LLC (NINA), the nuclear development company jointly owned by NRG Energy, Inc. (NYSE:NRG) and Toshiba Corporation, announced they had reached an agreement with Tokyo Electric Power Company (Tepco), that owns the Fukushima Daiichi, to partner in the two new nuclear units at the South Texas Project (STP).

Tepco has been implicated in a series of cover-ups down the years.

  • In 2002, the chairman and four other executives resigned, suspected of having falsified safety records at Tepco power stations.
  • Further examples of falsification were identified in 2006 and 2007.

As Austin Energy and CPS consider the Power Purchase Agreements NRG is peddling they should look very hard at what is happening in Japan and at TEPCO’s ability to remain a financial partner in STP.

In a Wall Street Journal article by Rebecca Smith (click here to read the entire article), she writes that the unfolding crisis at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant casts doubt on the fundamental premise that has undergirded the global nuclear industry for five decades: that engineers can build enough redundancy into plant safety systems to overcome dangers.

Peter Bradford, a member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission at the time of the Three Mile Island accident in Pennsylvania in 1979 (who has spoken to local leaders in Central Texas about numerous issues that should preclude them from becoming partners in or signing power purchase agreements with NRG in the STP expansion), said that the accident exposes shortcomings in risk analysis as well as in engineering.

“The redundancy, such as it was, obviously was inadequate to the event that actually happened,” he said. He said the problem is that certain risks always are discounted in the licensing process as “so highly unlikely that you don’t have to plan for them.”

He said that may be the case in Japan, with an earthquake that apparently exceeded the level that the plant was designed to withstand, possibly compounded by other unexpected technical problems or by the tsunami. It’s not yet known if operator error may have played a role, as it did three decades ago at Three Mile Island.

“The really important question,” Mr. Bradford said, “is to ask how different licensing bodies decide what risks have to be guarded against and see if that analysis was adequate.”

Even Texas Congressman Joe Barton, who is chair emeritus of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and a strong proponent of the push for nuclear expansion in the U.S. is now saying:

. . . that nuclear plants are designed with earthquakes in mind. “They’re supposed to be double and triple redundant…. If I’ve been to one briefing, I’ve been to a dozen, given by the industry, where they talk about all the safety features and the built-in redundancy features that protect the reactors in the event of an accident, a natural disaster, even a terrorist attack.”

Mr. Barton added that he’s “very puzzled that, even as big as this earthquake was, the plant didn’t meet those standards. That’s something that even proponents of nuclear power want to get to the bottom of…. I believe very strongly in the future of nuclear power, but those who support it have to insist that the safety redundancy features perform.”

To date, the major stumbling block to the US rushing headlong into a “nuclear renaissance”  has been the huge financial cost and risks involved in building new nuclear plants in down economy.  It is tragic and unfortunate that it is taking the failure of these Japanese plants in the wake of what surely is one of the worst disasters in Japanese history to cause the US to look more closely at their rush to increase our country’s nuclear portfolio.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) wants to know the reasons for the Texas power generation outages and for the interruptions in natural gas delivery to New Mexico.

As Texas officials began looking into the causes of the Texas electricity blackouts, New Mexico was holding its own hearings.  The ripple effect felt by down pipeline states when Texas’ electric grid and natural gas supplies went awry during an abnormally cold winter storm in February of this has prompted the federal agency to examine how to ensure that a new fleet of natural gas plants around the country can get plenty of fuel.

This has major implications for a state that has been expanding natural gas drilling operations exponentially over the past several years, many think to the detriment of the environment and the health of those who live around those operation.  Just ask the folks in the Barnett Shale region of North Texas.  Some of them might even be able to light their water taps on fire for you.

If you want to learn more about the concerns of citizens living in natural gas drillling areas check out “Gasland,” the Academy Award nominated documentary film by Josh Fox, that examines whether hydraulic fracturing of shale formations threatens water supplies and poses other environmental hazards.  Click here to read our earlier blog about the movie.

According to an update from the Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS) an explosion has occurred at Fukushima Daiichi Unit 1.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMEV-_X5b_8]

Video of the aftermath of the explosion shows that the containment building
has been destroyed.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELR3hdlce2g]

The NIRS update goes on to explain, in a General Electric Mark I reactor, the containment building is fairly weak and is considered the secondary containment. The primary containment is a steel liner that surrounds the reactor core. So far, video and photos have not been clear enough for us to determine whether this steel liner is intact.

Radiation levels at the site are reported to be 1,015 micro/Sieverts per hour. This is roughly equivalent to 100 millirems/hour. The allowable annual dose for members of the public from nuclear facilities in the U.S. is 100 millirems/year. The allowable annual dose for nuclear workers is 5,000 millirems/year. The average annual background dose from all radiation sources in the U.S. is about 360 millirems/year.

The explosion in Unit 1 was almost surely a hydrogen explosion. Pressure has been building up in the containment since offsite power was lost to the reactor because of the earthquake/tsunami. The GE Mark I reactor design is called a “pressure suppression” design. Rather than be built to withstand large pressure increases, General Electric sought with this design to attempt to reduce such increases in an accident scenario. The design has been criticized by independent nuclear experts and even Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff for many years (see: http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/bwrfact.htm).  In this case, the design clearly did not work. 24 U.S. reactors use the GE Mark I design.

The evacuation zone around the site has been expanded to 20 kilometers (about 12 miles). Another reactor at Fukushima Daiichi, Unit 2, is reported to be without cooling capability at this time. Three reactors at the nearby Fukushima Daini site are reported to be without cooling capability. These are GE Mark II designs, which are considered a mild improvement over the Mark I design. Both sites are on the Pacific Ocean, about six miles apart.

The Public Utility Commission (PUC) sunset bill (H.B. 2134) would give the PUC the authority to approve or change the annual budget of the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT),  stipulates that no member of the PUC could work for ERCOT for at least two years after he or she had stepped down, and fines would quadruple (from a maximum of $25,000 per day to $100,000 per day) for any company found to have manipulated the electric market for its own gain under the Sunset bill that will be heard in House State Affairs Committee on Monday, March 14th.

Rep. Burt Solomons (R-Carrollton)

State Rep. Burt SolomonsHouse Bill 2134 largely tracks the recommendations approved in January by the Sunset Advisory Commission and includes language that the Carrollton Republican has been advocating for at least two years to cut the number of ERCOT board members who have ties the electric industry.

State Affairs is scheduled to take up the Sunset bill during its hearing that convenes 30 minutes after the House adjourns Monday. The meeting will be held in Room 140 of the Reagan Building northwest of the Capitol.

To see the full text of H.B. 2134, click here.