This caucus was held at the Texas Democratic Party Convention in Dallas, Texas, on 27 June, 2014.
The caucus, which ran from
1 PM until 2:30 PM on 27 June, was SRO (standing room only) for much of the
caucus. Unfortunately, Alyssa Burgin of
Texas Drought Project had an accident and was unable to attend. But the remaining panelists kept the crowd
attentive and engaged. OPD’s James
Cargas, who is a candidate for U.S. Congress 7th District, moderated the caucus
and gave the initial presentation on the current status of the nation’s energy
policy… or lack thereof. Sharon Wilson
of EarthWorks, presented a scathing criticism of fracking and natural gas
production but, after some discussion, admitted she was not totally opposed to
natural gas production as long as total costs of production and subsequent environmental
and property damages were accounted for and injured parties made whole. Jim Rine discussed implications of energy production
and global warming and some possible steps to slow CO2 emissions. Between presentations, current office holders
and candidates stated their cases.
Notable attendees were Pete Van de Putte representing his wife Leticia,
who is running for Lt. Governor; US Congressman Gene Greene; candidate for RR
Commissioner, Steve Brown; and Annise Parker, Mayor of Houston. Proof that the caucus was well-received is
that many attendees made comments.
Copies of the Cargas &
Rine presentations are available in Dropbox (https://www.dropbox.com/sh/dbtb50i6nvaeal5/AADoIXBLxVZm0b2SlBvvIkKLa?n=313903625) or on our Facebook page.
Oilpatch Democrats
Oilpatch Democrats (OPD) seek to promote a responsible conduct of business within the energy industry for the common good of our country, particularly as it applies to energy efficiency, conservation, the environment, human rights, workers rights, the economy, domestic and foreign relations, national security, and corporate accountability.
Sunday, July 20, 2014
Tuesday, June 24, 2014
ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT BRIEFING PAPER FOR WENDY DAVIS CAMPAIGN FOR TEXAS GOVERNOR AND OTHER DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES From OilPatch Democrats, May 20, 2014
The following briefing paper broadly follows the topics outlined in the
“Suggested Energy talking points” document sent to the campaign in October 2013
(attached) from the OilPatch Democrats (OPD).
This briefing paper includes expanded OPD “talking points” along with
excerpts of published articles (with links to original publications) pertaining
to the particular topic. OPD doesn’t
necessarily endorse all the views expressed in these articles but feels the
majority of the facts and opinions expressed in them should be noted.
1.0
Responsible production of fossil fuels
1.1 OPD Talking
Point - The oil and gas industry in Texas has made great strides in the last few
years, largely due to the development and utilization of improved methods of
hydraulic fracturing. The procedure of
fracking and the subsequent production of oil and gas from these unconventional
plays (combined low permeability source rock and reservoir), however, requires
many more wells than past conventional plays (extraction from higher
permeability reservoir rocks). With all
these added wells come added problems, because even with a very low rate of material
failure or operational mistakes, there are bound to incidents resulting in
damages toindividual property owners or nearby communities. These problems can be fixed with the
proper oversight and procedures for allowing individual landowners and their
communities to obtain recourse for damages. Unfortunately, the needed oversight and
procedures for recourse have diminished with successive Republican
administrations.
1.2 The
following chart (Figure 1) shows that, between 2008 and 2013, the number of
wells in the Eagle Ford play quadrupled while TCEQ’s budget was almost cut in
half. Is it logical to expect that TCEQ
can perform its stated mission “…to protect our state's public health and
natural resources…” with this level of diminished funding?
Figure 1. From InsideClimate News (http://insideclimatenews.org/fracking-eagle-ford-shale-big-oil-bad-air-texas-prairie).
1.3 This lack of funding for the TCEQ may be why the number of
monitoring stations for the Eagle Fords is so inadequate.
The TCEQ
has only five permanent monitors in the Eagle Ford, all positioned far from the most heavily
drilled areas. The Barnett Shale in
North Texas, by contrast, has 35 permanent monitors, even though that field
covers only about 5,000 square miles — a quarter of the area of the Eagle Ford
(http://www.publicintegrity.org/2014/02/18/14235/drilling-ravages-texas-eagle-ford-shale-residents-living-petri-dish).
The
increased level of monitoring of the Barnett area may be due in part to the
efforts of State Senator Davis and State Representative Veasey (http://www.davis.senate.state.tx.us/pr11/p20110801a.pdf).
1.4 The
following is an excerpt from http://www.publicintegrity.org/2014/02/18/14235/drilling-ravages-texas-eagle-ford-shale-residents-living-petri-dish)
Our investigation and records obtained from Texas regulatory
agencies reveal a system that does more to protect the industry than the public. Among the findings:
·
Texas’
air monitoring system is so flawed that the state knows almost nothing about
the extent of the pollution in the Eagle Ford.
Only five permanent air monitors are installed in the 20,000-square-mile
region, and all are at the fringes of the shale play, far from the heavy
drilling areas where emissions are highest.
- Thousands of oil and gas facilities,
including six of the nine production sites near the Buehrings’ house, are
allowed to self-audit their emissions without reporting them to the state. The Texas Commission on Environmental
Quality (TCEQ), which regulates most air emissions, doesn’t even know some
of these facilities exist. An internal agency document acknowledges that the rule
allowing this practice “[c]annot be proven to be protective.”
- Companies that break the law are rarely
fined. Of the 284 oil and gas
industry-related complaints filed with the TCEQ by Eagle Ford residents
between Jan. 1, 2010, and Nov. 19, 2013, only two resulted in fines
despite 164 documented violations. The
largest was just $14,250 (Pending enforcement actions could lead to six
more fines.).
- The Texas legislature has cut the TCEQ’s
budget by a third since the Eagle Ford boom began, from $555 million in 2008 to $372 million in 2014.
At the same time, the amount allocated for air
monitoring equipment dropped
from $1.2 million to $579,000.
- The Eagle Ford boom is feeding an
ominous trend: A 100-percent statewide increase in unplanned toxic air
releases associated with oil and gas production since 2009. Known as emission events, these releases
are usually caused by human error or faulty equipment.
- Residents of the mostly rural Eagle Ford
counties are at a disadvantage even in Texas because they haven’t been
given air quality protections, such as more permanent monitors, provided
to the wealthier, more suburban Barnett Shale
region near
Dallas-Fort Worth.
Texas
officials tasked with overseeing the industry are often its strongest
defenders, leaving the Buehrings and other families interviewed for this story
to mostly fend for themselves. Oil money
is so thoroughly ingrained in the Texas culture and economy that there is
little interest in or sympathy for those who have become collateral damage in
the drive for riches.
1.5 Some
personal stories from this report are as follows.
The
Lyssy family from Wilson County, Texas:
More
often than not, residents’ complaints lead nowhere, as Fred and Amber Lyssy
discovered in April 2013.
The
Lyssys raise pigs, goats, and cattle on a 564-acre organic farm in Wilson
County outside Floresville. The land is
owned by Fred’s mother, Agnes Ramos, who for years has refused offers to lease
the mineral rights for drilling. Some
neighboring landowners have accepted, however, and the Lyssys' land is now
surrounded by wells, flares, and holding tanks.
When foul
odors swept across the farm, the Lyssys suspected a gas processing plant less
than a mile away. Fred stopped letting
his livestock graze on the pasture next to the facility and moved his and
Amber’s bedroom to the opposite side of the house. They worry about how their three children —
ages 7 months, 3½ years, and 6 years — will be affected by the pollution. They fear it will jeopardize their pledge to
provide organic food to their customers.
“We are
about liberty and freedom,” Amber said, “but they are trespassing with their
emissions.”
The Buehring family from Karnes City:
KARNES
CITY, Texas — When Lynn Buehring leaves her doctor’s office in San Antonio, she
makes sure her inhaler is on the seat beside her, then steers her red GMC
pickup truck southeast on U.S. 181, toward her home on the South Texas prairie.
About 40
miles down the road, between Poth and Falls City, drilling rigs, crude oil
storage tanks, and flares trailing black smoke appear amid the mesquite, live
oak, and pecan trees. Depending on the
speed and direction of the wind, a yellow-brown haze might stretch across the
horizon, filling the car with pungent odors. Sometimes Buehring’s eyes burn, her chest
tightens, and pain stabs at her temples. On those days, she touches her inhaler for
reassurance.
From the
porch of their little white house, the Buehrings can see, and often smell,
evidence of the hell-bent rush to tap Texas oil.
In
addition to the wells near their home, there are at least 9 oil and gas
production facilities. Little is known
about 6 of the facilities, because they don't have to file their emissions data
with the state. Air permits for the
remaining 3 sites show they house 25 compressor engines, 10 heater treaters, 6
flares, 4 glycol dehydrators, and 65 storage tanks for oil, wastewater, and
condensate. Combined, those sites have
the state’s permission to release 189 tons of volatile organic compounds, a
class of toxic chemicals that includes benzene and formaldehyde, into the air
each year. That’s about 12 percent more
than Valero's Houston Oil Refinery disgorged in 2012.
Figure 2.
From http://insideclimatenews.org/fracking-eagle-ford-shale-big-oil-bad-air-texas-prairie.
1.6 Not
only is the Republican-dominated state government not protecting Texans, it is
aggressively hindering the efforts of local governments and regulators to try
and address problems on their own. One
example is recent actions by TCEQ against the city of San Antonio as described
in a report by InsideClimateNews (http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20140423/texas-yanks-funding-san-antonio-air-quality-program-releasing-emissions-data), which is excerpted below.
A few casual words and the early release of
some scientific data have cost the San Antonio region much-needed state funds
to battle its growing air pollution problem.
The misstep, which appears to have been unintentional, highlights the
sensitivity of studying oil and gas pollution in business-friendly Texas.
The dispute began after the Alamo Area Council of
Governments
(AACOG)—a coalition that oversees 13 counties in the San Antonio
region—launched a two-part study to determine how oil and gas drilling was
affecting the city's air quality.
San Antonio's air
quality has been deteriorating since 2008, the same year drilling began in the nearby Eagle Ford Shale,
site of one of the nation's biggest energy booms. The air pollution is now so bad that
metropolitan San Antonio could soon be declared in nonattainment with federal
standards for ozone, the main component of smog. If that happens, it could be subject to
sanctions from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, including increased
EPA oversight for new development projects.
Local officials hope to avoid that fate by
curbing pollution through voluntary measures, but first they need to understand
where the emissions are coming from. Because
San Antonio is one of the fastest-growing cities in the nation, much of the
ozone-forming chemicals are likely emitted by cars and trucks. But AACOG knew little about the contributions
from oil and gas drilling.
AACOG released the first part of the study,
an emission inventory of the Eagle Ford, on April 4. It projected a dramatic
increase in air emissions by 2018 during peak ozone season, including a possible 281-percent increase
in releases of volatile organic compounds, which react with nitrogen oxides to
form ozone. More details are expected in
the second part, a photochemical model that explains how the emissions affect
San Antonio's ozone levels.
About a week after the emission inventory
was released, the Austin American-Statesman reported that the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), which funded the study, had
slashed AACOG's air-quality planning budget by 25 percent because an AACOG
employee had made some of the draft results public. AACOG's contract with the TCEQ prohibited
AACOG from releasing any results without TCEQ approval.
1.7 Another example
of the Republican bias towards industry versus protection of individual
landowners and their communities is the State Legislature’s prohibition of to
adding new regulations pertaining to the Eagle Ford play. The following is excerpted from http://www.publicintegrity.org/2014/02/18/14240/saturated-oil-money-texas-legislature-saved-industry-pollution-rule.
KARNES
CITY, Texas — In January 2011, with air quality worsening in Texas’ booming oil and gas fields and the federal government beginning to
take notice, state environmental regulators adopted rules to reduce harmful
emissions.
The
industry rebelled. So did the state
legislature.
A few
months later, the legislature overwhelmingly approved SB1134, a bill that
effectively prevented the new regulations from being applied in the Eagle Ford
Shale region of South Texas, the fastest-growing oil shale play in the nation
and maybe the world. Since then, more
than 2,400 air emissions permits have been issued in the Eagle Ford without
additional safeguards that would have reduced the amounts of benzene, hydrogen
sulfide, formaldehyde and other toxic chemicals that drift into the air
breathed by 1.1 million people.
The Texas
legislature’s rush to protect the oil and gas industry reflects a culture in
which politics and business are almost inseparable.
1.8 OPD concluding comments regarding oversight
of fossil fuel production in Texas
It
would be reasonable to concur with Greg Abbott that Texas could do a better job
than the EPA to protect the citizens and environment of our state if our state
regulatory agencies were given adequate funding and given instructions to follow their mission statement to “… protect our state's public health and
natural resources….” Unfortunately,
with the status quo outlook of the Republican-dominated State Government that
energy industry interests can do no wrong, individual Texans and their
communities have little recourse other than to seek help from the Federal
Government. This will change under a Davis
Administration where the rights of individual landowners and communities will
be protected by Texas agencies.
1.9 OPD opinion on fracking
Hydraulic
fracturing (fracking) has been used by the petroleum industry for decades, and
we support its continued safe use because this technology enhances domestic oil
and gas production, which, in turn, lowers our reliance on foreign
sources. In a state where water
resources are a precious commodity, however, the Davis Administration will
promote policies that minimize water use in the fracking process and maximize
water recovery for future use.
Furthermore, when the inevitable failures occur, the Davis
Administration will emphasize protection of the rights of landowners and
communities.
1.10 Article on water conservation (or the lack of) regarding the
Barnett shale play
Study: In Midst of Drought, Fracking Industry Does
Little to Recycle Water
Barnett
Shale drilling rig
A
newly-published study of
fracking-related water use in North Texas’ Barnett Shale provides new insights
into what has been a murky topic. Authored
by researchers at the University of Texas’ Bureau of Economic Geology and
published in Environmental Science and
Technology, the paper describes
the Barnett Shale as an “ideal case” to try to get a better understanding of
how much water is being used in fracking, the source of the water, how much is
actually recycled and how much of the wastewater ends up in injection
wells—pressing questions in drought-stricken Texas. “This is the first paper, I think, to take a
comprehensive look at water use in one play,” said lead author, JP Nicot.
While
researchers, journalists and regulators have slowly developed better estimates of how
much water fracking consumes, especially at a regional or state level, less
attention has been paid to where the water comes from and whether the industry
is following through on promises to recycle and reuse water that returns to the
surface after a frack job. What jumps
out at me in this study is how little the industry has accomplished in using
less water since the Barnett Shale took off in the middle of the last
decade—even in the face of crippling drought.
Nicot
found that the vast majority of water, about 92 percent, used to frack Barnett
Shale wells in 2011 was “consumed”—never to return to the aquifer or reservoir
again. Only around 5 percent of all the
water has been reused or recycled “for the past few years.” The remainder,
about 3 percent, came from brackish water sources. The figures suggest that the industry is
making very little progress in conserving water, despite a push from regulators
and lawmakers to encourage the practice.
At one
time, Nicot said, companies were doing more to recycle.
“They
started doing it even at a monetary loss,” he said. “Then they realized well it doesn’t seem like
we are going anywhere with that recycling thing so let’s cut our losses and
let’s not recycle anymore.”
“I know
a lot of recycling companies,” he added.
“They are kind of disappointed. A
lot of people thought it would be the next big thing, the El Dorado. … The
overall feel is that it’s not working as well as it could have.”
But so
far, the industry does not seem too concerned about the drought. “Periodic droughts, characteristic of Texas
climate, do not seem to control [hydraulic fracturing] water use in the Barnett
play, which is more sensitive to the price of gas and economic activity,” Nicot
wrote.
Indeed,
the correlation between gas production and water use in fracking is nearly
perfect. The more gas produced, the more
water used, with little to no increase in efficiency.
JP
Nicot
Cumulative
gas production and water use track each other.
Other
interesting findings from the study:
·
We know
very little about the source of water used in Barnett Shale fracking. Nicot reports that data is “sparse” because “the industry is
fragmented” and “water contracts are signed and expire in a very dynamic
business environment.” Groundwater regulation in Texas is notoriously
scattershot, spread over more than a 100 locally-run groundwater conservation
districts, many of which don’t collect information on fracking-related water
use. There is nothing in state law
requiring that the industry report the source of its water.
- Nonetheless,
Nicot is able to estimate that the Barnett Shale play relies roughly half
on groundwater and half on surface water.
- Most
of the groundwater comes from the Trinity Aquifer, one of the most
depleted in the state.
- The
potential for recycling in the Barnett Shale is much greater than in the
Eagle Ford Shale or other shale plays.
In many Barnett
Shale wells, more water comes back to the surface than is injected in the
fracking process. Such abundant
“produced water” can be recycled or reused.
For now
it appears to be business as usual, despite the hype about recycling and reuse
1.11 Recycling of produced water and use of
saline aquifers
Recent
articles and presentations with the Houston Geological Society addressed the
issue of recycling of produced water from oil and gas drilling and the use of
saline aquifers (articles from the February and May 2014 issues of the HGS
Bulletin are attached). An oral presentation
in May by Doug Hall pointed out that, while overall use of water for fracking
may be a small percentage of overall freshwater use in Texas (1%), in some
communities it may consume 50% of the available water. Hall also pointed out that economics plays a
large role in whether or not operators dispose of produced water in a disposal
well (DW) or recycle it. If a DW is
within 25 to 50 miles, it is generally cheaper to use it. A more important conclusion expressed by Hall
is that, if a locality goes to the expense of constructing a purification and
desalination plant, direct extraction of water from saline aquifers is a much
more reliable resource than produced water from oil and gas wells. It is estimated that Texas has 2.7 billion
acre-feet of brackish groundwater.
1.12 Pickens
Plan (the NG alternative to alternative energy)
The
following is an excerpt from http://www.pic
kensplan.com/natural_gas/
Abundance Natural gas is one of America’s greatest
resources. While reserves other
resources are diminishing, new drilling technologies and techniques are allowing
us to recover natural gas in the huge shale deposits found all across America. A recent Rice University study projects that
U.S. shale gas production will more than quadruple by 2040 from 2010 levels of
more than 10 billion cubic feet per day, reaching more than 50 percent of total
U.S. natural gas production by the 2030s.
The study incorporates independent scientific and economic literature on
shale costs and resources, including assessments by organizations such as the
U.S. Geological Survey, the Potential Gas Committee and scholarly peer-reviewed
papers of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. As President Obama has pointed out, the
energy available from natural gas contained in these shale deposits can provide
ample supplies for the next 100 years.
2.0 OPD
talking point: development of
alternative sources of energy
Texas is the
number one state for energy production from wind and one of the top 10 states
for solar energy production, a status largely resulting from private sector
efforts. The Davis Administration will promote
policies to facilitate the production and distribution of these and other alternative
energy resources in order advance Texas’ leadership as an energy producer.
For a general overview of both the
fossil fuel and alternative energy possibilities, OPD recommends viewing the
documentary Switch. This documentary
is largely the result of efforts by Scott Tinker, Director of the Bureau of
Economic Geology at the University of Texas, Austin. A copy of this movie can be purchased online
or furnished by OPD.
3.0 Promotion of advanced smart grid technology
3.1 OPD
talking point—In order to better utilize the wind and solar resources of
Texas and to safeguard access to power during local and regional emergencies, the
Davis Administration will promote an interstate and nationally integrated
electrical network connecting all sources of energy generation (power plants,
wind farms, solar farms, single consumers/producers), feeding divergently
located power consumers through a computer controlled and balanced system.
3.2 The following article, which ranks states on smart grid
policies, investments and customer engagement levels, shows Texas as second only to California.
Jeff
St. John, July 29, 2013, http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/embargo-which-states-are-leading-in-smart-grid
Which
states are leading the nation in smart grid investment -- and which policies
and customer engagement practices are driving that lead?
A new report from the GridWise
Alliance and the Smart Grid Policy Center lays out the answers to these
questions, in a first-ever state-by-state ranking across those three
categories.
The Grid Modernization Index Report (PDF), released Sunday at the National Association of
Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC) meeting in Washington, D.C., lays out
a treasure trove of statistical detail for industry players and state utility
regulators, along with some unexpected findings on which state policies do --
and don’t -- correlate to more effective smart grid efforts.
( GMI = Grid Modernization Index)
“It’s not just measuring that the
technology has been deployed,” Becky Harrison, CEO of the GridWise Alliance,
said in a Friday prebriefing, “It’s measuring how the utilities are gaining
value from that and introducing ways for the customers to engage.”
That means that the overall state
rankings have been further broken up into which states are leading in each of
those three categories. That chart
reveals some interesting discrepancies.
While Texas and California were the
top-ranked states, they got there by different routes, Harrison noted. For example, while both states are leading
the nation in terms of smart meter deployments, Texas’ deregulated and
competitive energy markets have allowed retail power providers to use those
assets to increase customer pricing programs and engagement efforts, whereas in
California’s regulated utility environment, that hasn’t happened as quickly.
Texas' approach to smart meter data
management and integration have also “enabled the back-end data centers that
have allowed these systems to work in that deregulated environment,” she said.
On the other hand, in California,
which has the nation’s most aggressive policies on renewable energy, “We’re
seeing investments on the grid side help them recognize and deal with the
higher distribution of generation resources that are out there,” she said
(California is also taking the lead in pushing energy storage into the grid.).
The study also revealed some
correlations between smart grid acumen and other energy policies. For example, states that had received a large
portion of smart grid stimulus grants from the American Reinvestment and
Recovery Act showed a higher score across all three smart grid categories. Another link was found between the 26 states
that have renewable portfolio standards requiring solar, wind and other green
energy resources, showing a strong correlation to high scores in smart grid
investment, policy and customer engagement -- although the study didn’t delve
into just what linkages drove that correlation.
On the other hand, some correlations
that were expected to appear didn’t actually show up, Harrison noted. For example, “We suspected there might be
some correlation with electricity pricing,” but the study found no statistical
link between the price of power and the smart grid scores amongst states, she
said.
3.3 OPD
suggested comments—A Davis
Administration would encourage the growth of this technology and educate the
public why “smart grid” is good and not intrusive. Perhaps with the right incentives, Texas
could be #1 instead of #2 behind California.
Since Texas is currently #2 from the BOTTOM in education, however, a Davis
Administration will be placing initial emphasis on improving the education of
Texas children.
4.0 Development
of alternative transportation systems
Since
transportation currently relies almost exclusively on oil, much of which is
imported, the Davis Administration will develop policies that encourage the use
of Texas-produced energy resources, such as natural gas (see Section 1.12,
Pickens Plan).
5.0 Nuclear
energy
5.1 OPD talking point—Nuclear
energy offers an immense source of energy with negligible carbon emissions but
with other inherent risks, as demonstrated by the event at Japan’s Fukishima
plant. Texas’s similarly designed plants
are especially susceptible to catastrophic weather events, such as floods or
prolonged droughts, which rob the plants of the necessary water for cooling of their
radioactive cores. The Davis
Administration will stringently monitor our current plants while promoting
research into more reliable and safer next-generation nuclear resources.
Below are two articles describing how even without
earthquakes or tsunamis, Texas reactors could be vulnerable, especially in a
changing climate situation such as the one in which we find ourselves. The first article points out environmental
vulnerabilities of present reactors. The
second article, which is by the somewhat “colorful” investigative journalist
Gregg Pallast, points out inherent problems in the present and projected
reactors within Texas.
5.2 From
International Business Times, February 12, 2014
Could a nuclear accident like the 2011 meltdown that
crippled the Fukushima Daiichi plant in Japan happen here?
David
Lochbaum, a former nuclear engineer, director of the Nuclear Safety Program for
the Union of Concerned Scientists and one of the authors of the new book-length
account “Fukushima: The Story of a Nuclear Disaster,” thinks it’s more than
possible. The safety preparations at the
plant before the accident, he says, weren’t that different from the precautions
taken at U.S. plants.
“It’s
not that Japan was behind the standards of the rest of the world, or that the
Japanese regulators or [Fukushima Daiichi operator] TEPCO was especially inept,”
Lochbaum says. “They’re on par with
everyone else.”
U.S.
regulators have already been warning operators about the possibility of
Fukushima-type disasters happening in the U.S. for years.
One of
the most likely scenarios that could cause a meltdown is a flood. Nuclear reactors require a lot of water to
carry away their waste heat, so they’re generally built next to oceans, lakes
or rivers. Plants near lakes and rivers
are often located downstream of a dam. In
that case, if a dam bursts, the plant could be flooded and lose power,
similarly to what happened at the Fukushima plant when the tsunami hit. In 2009, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
staff identified about 35 reactors in the U.S. (out of the 100 currently
operating) that were vulnerable to dam failures, according to Lochbaum.
In June
2010, about nine months before Fukushima’s three reactors melted down, the NRC
issued a letter to Duke Energy, the owner and operator of the Oconee Nuclear
Station near Seneca, South Carolina (view the letter here on Scribd). The
letter – initially not released to the public, but unearthed by a reporter from
The Cascadia Times in Oregon, through a Freedom of Information Act Request --
lists various actions Duke Energy is supposed to take to mitigate the risk of
flood damage.
This
letter came after NRC risk analysts concluded that the failure of the Jocassee
Dam had a 100 percent chance of causing Oconee’s three reactors to melt down,
according to Lochbaum (Duke’s own reports disagree.). The main reason for concern? The plant’s flood wall was five feet high;
the flood waters caused by a dam breakage were estimated to rise about 14 feet. Fukushima’s seawall was also easily breached
by a 50-foot tsunami wave.
“In
other words, both Oconee and Fukushima were protected by flood walls that
worked just fine, unless there was a flood,” Lochbaum says.
Another
risk to U.S. nuclear plants is fire. Like
floods, flames can disable safety systems and their backups.
“At Fukushima,
workers had literally dozens of pumps that could put water into the reactor
vessel,” Lochbaum says. “But the
flooding disabled all forms of electricity such that all these pumps literally
stood by powerlessly. Fire can have this
same consequence.”
In
fact, a U.S. plant came close to a fire-related meltdown in 1975. A worker at the Browns Ferry nuclear plant in
Alabama had accidentally caused a fire while using a candle to check for air
leaks in a room directly below the control room for two reactors. The fire burned for almost seven hours, and
damaged the electrical cables in the room such that all of the emergency
cooling systems for one reactor shut down, along with most of the emergency
systems for the other reactor.
"Only
heroic operator actions prevented two meltdowns that day," Lochbaum says.
The NRC
adopted fire protection regulations to prevent another Browns Ferry incident in
1980, and updated them in 2004.
But
“today, about half of the reactors operating in the US do not comply with either
the 1980 or the 2004 regulations,” Lochbaum says. “Sadly, the three reactors at the Browns
Ferry nuclear plant are among those that operate in violation of fire
protection regulations. As [are] the
three reactors at Oconee.”
So,
what has been done, post-Fukushima? The NRC issued recommendations and orders for
upgrades shortly after the accident to try and apply lessons from the incident
to domestic plants. By December 2016,
U.S. nuclear plant owners must make various upgrades to help guard against extended
blackouts, in order to be able to keep spent nuclear fuel cool and avoid
meltdowns. Plant owners were ordered to
invest in more portable power equipment in plants and nearby sites, improve
instruments that measure the levels of water inside spent fuel pools and expand
post-9/11 protections against terrorist attacks from single reactors to
multiple reactors, among other actions. Plant
operators think the first wave of these post-Fukushima upgrades are thought to
cost around $3.6 billion over the next few years, according to a Platts survey.
With
all of this potential danger for catastrophe, how can nuclear power still be a
viable option? Lochbaum, for his part,
says he’s not pro-nuclear or anti-nuclear -- just pro-safety.
“There’s
no totally good or totally bad way to generate electricity,” Lochbaum says. “Nuclear has some certain advantages -- we
basically recognize that it’s better than fossil fuel in terms of [contributing
to] global warming. The key is to
extract as many benefits from the technology that we can, while minimizing
opportunities for bad things to happen.”
Reporter covering the green technology space,
with a particular focus on smart grid, demand response, energy storage,
renewable energy and technology to integrate distributed, intermittent green
energy into the grid.
5.3 From Truthout
News, March 14, 2011
Tokyo
Electric to Build US Nuclear Plants: The No BS Info on Japan's Disastrous
Nuclear Operators
Texas
nuclear plants planned by Tokyo Electric (Image: NINA)
I need
to speak to you, not as a reporter, but in my former capacity as lead
investigator in several government nuclear plant fraud and racketeering
investigations.
I don't
know the law in Japan, so I can't tell you if Tokyo Electric Power Co (TEPCO)
can plead insanity to the homicides about to happen.
But
what will Obama plead? The
administration, just months ago, asked Congress to provide a $4 billion loan guarantee
for two new nuclear reactors to be built and operated on the Gulf Coast of
Texas - by TEPCO and local partners. As
if the Gulf hasn't suffered enough. Here
are the facts about TEPCO and the industry you haven't heard on CNN:
The
failure of emergency systems at Japan's nuclear plants comes as no surprise to
those of us who have worked in the field.
Nuclear
plants the world over must be certified for what is called "SQ" or
"Seismic Qualification." That is, the owners swear that all
components are designed for the maximum conceivable shaking event, be it from
an earthquake or an exploding Christmas card from al-Qaeda.
The
most inexpensive way to meet your SQ is to lie.
The industry does it all the time.
The government team I worked with caught them once, in 1988, at the
Shoreham plant in New York. Correcting
the SQ problem at Shoreham would have cost a cool billion, so engineers were
told to change the tests from "failed" to "passed."
The
company that put in the false safety report?
Stone & Webster, now the nuclear unit of Shaw Construction, which
will work with TEPCO to build the Texas plant.
Lord help us.
There's
more.
Last
night, I heard CNN reporters repeat the official line that the tsunami disabled
the pumps needed to cool the reactors, implying that water unexpectedly got
into the diesel generators that run the pumps.
These
safety backup systems are the "EDGs" in nuke-speak: Emergency Diesel
Generators. That they didn't work in an
emergency is like a fire department telling us they couldn't save a building
because "it was on fire."
What
dim bulbs designed this system? One of
the reactors dancing with death at Fukushima Station 1 was built by Toshiba. Toshiba was also an architect of the
emergency diesel system.
Now be
afraid. Obama's $4 billion bailout in
the making is called the South Texas Project.
It's been sold as a red-white-and-blue way to make power domestically
with a reactor from Westinghouse, a great American brand. However, the reactor will be made
substantially in Japan by the company that bought the US brand name,
Westinghouse - Toshiba.
I once
had a Toshiba computer. I only had to
send it in once for warranty work. However,
it's kind of hard to mail back a reactor with the warranty slip inside the box
if the fuel rods are melted and sinking halfway to the earth's core.
TEPCO
and Toshiba don't know what my son learned in eighth grade science class:
tsunamis follow Pacific Rim earthquakes.
So, these companies are real stupid, eh?
Maybe. More likely is that the
diesels and related systems wouldn't have worked on a fine, dry afternoon.
Back in
the day, when we checked the emergency backup diesels in America, a
mind-blowing number flunked. At the New
York nuclear plant, for example, the builders swore under oath that their three
diesel engines were ready for an emergency.
They'd been tested. The tests
were faked; the diesels run for just a short time at low speed. When the diesels were put through a real test
under emergency-like conditions, the crankshaft on the first one snapped in
about an hour, then the second and third.
We nicknamed the diesels, "Snap, Crackle and Pop."
(Note:
Moments after I wrote that sentence, word came that two of three diesels failed
at the Tokai Station as well.)
In the
US, we supposedly fixed our diesels after much complaining by the industry. But in Japan, no one tells TEPCO to do
anything the Emperor of Electricity doesn't want to do.
I get
lots of confidential notes from nuclear industry insiders. One engineer, a big name in the field, is
especially concerned that Obama waved the come-hither check to Toshiba and
TEPCO to lure them to America. The US
has a long history of whistleblowers willing to put themselves on the line to
save the public. In our racketeering
case in New York, the government only found out about the seismic test fraud
because two courageous engineers, Gordon Dick and John Daly, gave our team the
documentary evidence.
In
Japan, it's simply not done. The culture
does not allow the salary men, who work all their lives for one company, to
drop the dime.
Not
that US law is a wondrous shield: both engineers in the New York case were
fired and blacklisted by the industry. Nevertheless,
the government (local, state, federal) brought civil racketeering charges
against the builders. The jury didn't
buy the corporation's excuses and, in the end, the plant was, thankfully,
dismantled.
Am I on
some kind of xenophobic anti-Nippon crusade?
No. In fact, I'm far more
frightened by the American operators in the South Texas nuclear project,
especially Shaw. Stone & Webster,
now the Shaw nuclear division, was also the firm that conspired to fake the EDG
tests in New York (The company's other exploits have been exposed by their
former consultant, John Perkins, in his book, "Confessions of an Economic
Hit Man."). If the planet wants to
shiver, consider this: Toshiba and Shaw have recently signed a deal to become
worldwide partners in the construction of nuclear stations.
The
other characters involved at the South Texas Plant that Obama is backing should
also give you the willies. But as I'm in
the middle of investigating the American partners, I'll save that for another
day.
So, if
we turned to America's own nuclear contractors, would we be safe? Well, two of the melting Japanese reactors,
including the one whose building blew sky high, were built by General Electric
of the Good Old US of A.
After
Texas, you're next. The Obama
administration is planning a total of $56 billion in loans for nuclear reactors
all over America.
And now,
the homicides:
CNN is
only interested in body counts, how many workers burnt by radiation, swept away
or lost in the explosion. These plants
are now releasing radioactive steam into the atmosphere. Be skeptical about the statements that the
"levels are not dangerous." These
are the same people who said these meltdowns could never happen. Over years, not days, there may be a thousand
people, two thousand, ten thousand who will suffer from cancers induced by this
radiation.
In my
New York investigation, I had the unhappy job of totaling up post-meltdown
"morbidity" rates for the county government. It would be irresponsible for me to estimate
the number of cancer deaths that will occur from these releases without further
information; but it is just plain criminal for the TEPCO shoguns to say that
these releases are not dangerous.
Indeed,
the fact that residents near the Japanese nuclear plants were not issued iodine
pills to keep at the ready shows TEPCO doesn't care who lives and who dies,
whether in Japan or the USA. The
carcinogenic isotopes that are released at Fukushima are already floating to
Seattle with effects we simply cannot measure.
Heaven
help us. Because
Obama won't.
********************************************************
Disclaimer: This briefing paper was compiled primarily by Dr.
James M. Rine, who accepts responsibility for its content, but was reviewed for
content and format by members of the OilPatch Democrats Executive Committee.
Reviewing OilPatch Democrats Executive Committee
Members:
John
R. Behrman
Donna Bryant
Karen
Menke
Bruce
Menke
John W. Preston
Tom
Rowan, Jr.
For questions or comments regarding this document,
contact Jim Rine at jimrine22@gmail.com or 281-414-1386.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)