Damaged Fukushima Spent Fuel Pools Are Big Concern

Norris McDonald with Spent Fuel Pool in background

PRESIDENT'S CORNER

By Norris McDonald

I have toured half a dozen spent fuel pools at various nuclear power plants.  They always fascinate me.  To look down on the boron-laced bluish looking water to observe the spent fuel assemblies below is just one of the most interesting things I have ever done.  It never ceases to amaze.  Being shown and instructed on how the fuel assemblies are brought into the plant, inserted into the reactor vessel, and ultimated romoved for storage in the spent fuel pools and dry cast outdoor storage is very enlightening.

The fuel rods at all six reactors at the Fukushima Dai-ichi complex contain plutonium. But only six percent of the fuel rods at the plant's Unit 3 were a mixture of plutonium-239 and uranium-235 when it was first put into operation. The fuel in other reactors is only uranium, but even there, plutonium is created during the fission process.  Plutonium-239 has a half-life of 25,000 years, meaning it takes that long to lose half of its radioactive potency. Uranium-235 has a half-life of 700 million years. And cesium, which tends to go airborne much more easily, has a half-life of 30 years.

When the pellets of uranium dioxide inside the thin fuel rods are split to create energy in the reactor, they release neutrons that, in turn, create highly radioactive plutonium-239. Some of the U-238 is transformed into PU-239.  This plutonium also splits, creating even more energy. By the end of a uranium fuel cycle, 40 percent of the energy produced comes from the splitting of plutonium.  The spent fuel rod that remains at the end of the process contains uranium, plutonium, and a mix of other radioactive byproducts.

The Fukushima Dai-ichi site has 3,400 tons of fuel in seven spent fuel pools within the six-reactor plant, including one joint pool storing very old fuel from units 3 and 4. There are 877 tons in five of the reactor cores. Officials have said that the fuel in Unit 4's reactor vessel was transferred to its spent fuel pool when the unit was temporarily shut in November.

Japan has recently built a facility to remove the byproducts and reprocess the plutonium and uranium into a substance called MOX for reuse in its reactors.  MOX mixes plutonium or highly enriched uranium from warheads with regular uranium for a blend that can be used in commercial reactors.  I toured the LaHague reprocessing facility in France (see photo below) in 2007. Japan's reprocessing plant, in Rokkasho, a village 300 miles (500 kilometers) north of Fukushima, is only starting up, and hasn't yet begun full operation.  I also toured the two nuclear reactors in the United States that use MOX fuel.

Norris Mcdonald (center) with tour group at LaHague nuclear fuel reprocessing facility in France

The explosions at the 3 containment buildings compromised the spent fuel pools.  Now those highly radioactive fuels assemblies are left unshielded by water.  The assemblies are not only radioactive, they are extremely hot.  This is a real problem for Tokyo Electric Power. I think they will have to bury the site much as the Russians did at Chernobly.  Sand, boron, dirt, cement, concrete, steel and everything else they can put on top of the site to block radiation releases into the environment. (FOX News, 3/18/2011)

Germany Overreacts To Japan Nuclear Disaster

Angela Merkel

German Chancellor Angela Merkel has ordered a three-month shutdown of nearly half of the country's 17 reactors built before 1980. Several of these reactors may never come back online and that others be phased out ahead of schedule.

The Center believes this is a gross overreaction to the Fukushima nuclear power plant disaster in Japan.

The seven reactors shut down this week were generating 5% of Germany's electricity. Nuclear power provides about 23% of the Germany's total electricity production. Abandoning nuclear power soon would oblige Europe's largest economy to draw more electricity from fossil fuels, endangering the government's ambitious self-imposed commitment to slash greenhouse-gas emissions to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050.  Dropping nuclear power entirely could raise the share of German electricity generated by coal-fired plants to over 60% from 45% currently. That would push up the price of emissions permits issued through the EU's carbon trading scheme, and in turn the price of electricity.

Germany's electricity prices, among the highest in Europe, have already more than doubled in the past decade, thanks in part to the country's aggressive subsidy push into renewable energies. Another traditional alternative to nuclear power, natural gas, burns more cleanly than coal but has its own drawbacks. Some 45% of the natural gas Germany uses to generate electricity and heat homes comes from Russia, and price disputes between the national utility, Gazprom, and its customers in Eastern Europe have endangered that supply several times since 2005.

Turning away from nuclear power would hit utilities' profits and the federal budget, too. The agreement Chancellor Merkel negotiated last fall for power companies to operate their reactors up to 14 years longer than planned would have brought them billions of euros in unexpected profits. And the government stood to take in more than half of that windfall through new levies and taxes. The four utilities with German reactors—E.ON AG, RWE AG, Energie Baden-Wuerttemberg AG and Vattenfall Europe AG—agreed to pay a tax on new fuel rods worth €2.3 billion ($3.2 billion) annually through 2016, which the government earmarked for its budget consolidation efforts, and planned to contribute some €25 billion more to a new fund for renewable energy research. It isn't clear whether that fund will survive the current review. (WSJ, 3/17/2011)

China Halts Approvals of New Nuclear Power Plants

The Chinese government has halted approvals of new nuclear-power plants pending changes to safety standards. The government also ordered integrity checks at existing plants.  The reviews are due to the Fukushima nuclear power plant disaster in Japan. The Chinese National Nuclear Safety Administration is sending monitors onto the East China Sea with radiation-detection equipment. So far, nothing unusual has been discovered.

China has 13 nuclear reactors in operation, at least 25 more under construction, and a five-year plan adopted by the National People's Congress just this month contains approvals for dozens more units. According to the World Nuclear Association, more than 70 additional reactors are in the proposal stage, including for regions with known seismic activity.

Derry Bigby, Zhang Xiaoping, Norris McDonald at Daya Bay

Center President Norris McDonald, Center Vice President Derry Bigby and Center China Office Director Zhang Xiaoping toured the Daya Bay nuclear power station in China's southern city of Huizhou in Guangdong province in 2007.  They also toured China's cutting edge Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) being developed about 40 miles from Beijing.


2 Reactors Under Construction at Daya Bay (2007)



Containment dome head for new reactor in background

Center staff with Dr. Wang Hong - PBMR in distant background

Among the major suppliers to China is Toshiba Corp.'s Westinghouse Electric, which produces a reactor called the AP1000 that features a passive safety system that doesn't require the same kind of pumps that failed in Japan. China also intends to utilize reprocessing spent uranium. China cannot achieve its clean-air goals without significant investment in nuclear power. (WSJ, 3/17/2011)

Fukushima Emergency Power Failure Crippled Plant

Current Status of Fukushima (WSJ Graphic)

Fukushima Damage

The record earthquake and tsunami  that crippled the Fukushima nuclear power plant's emergency power supply far exceeded all engineering assumptions.  With no power, the pumps could not provide needed water to keep the reactors cool.  Depending on the damage to the spent fuel pools by the explosions, the lack of electrical power also prevented pumping water into those pools that lost their water.  Now at least one spent fuel pool is buring out of control.

The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear complex's back-up diesel-powered generators were built below ground level. This bunker-like positioning would protect the generators from an air strike, cyclone or typhoon—but made them more vulnerable to an earthquake-driven tsunami. When the giant waves struck, they immobilized the generators despite being designed to protect against water. The tsunami also apparently washed away the generators' fuel tanks, which were above ground. (WSJ, 3/17/2011)

A Pronuclear Advocate's Worst Nightmare Comes True

PRESIDENT'S CORNER

Norris McDonald

I was the first environmentalist in the United States to publicly support nuclear power starting in 2000.  The Center is the only environmental organization in the United States that has aggressively promoted nuclear power.  Although the nuclear industry has not acknowledged our role, they know these facts to be true. Ask them if you do not believe this to be true.

I dreaded the day that I would awaken to a nuclear meltdown or any serious nuclear accident.  Now that nightmare scenario is reality.  I woke up on March 11th to the news that there was a major nuclear accident in Japan.  Three explosions have followed and Fukushima is now being touted as an accident worse than Chernobyl.

What is a pronuclear environmental advocate to do?

The physics and energy reality have not changed.  Nuclear power is still the best way to provide base load electricity to millions of households.  Yet San Onofre and Diablo Canyon are in the path of some future tsunami.  Although they are vital to California's electricity power pool, I fear that they might have to be shut down.  I submit that California should figure out some way to build 4 reactors to replace them, just not on the coastline.  I also worry that the American nuclear fleet is aging.  Yet climate change remains the most vicious environmental issue facing us today and tomorrow, bar none --  not even a 300 year Japanese tsunami that decimated an aging nuclear facility that was located on the wrong side of the island.

The tsunami crippled the Fukushima plant.  Knocked out the backup cooling systems and produced the nightmarish scenario that is still working itself out.  Yet that was an historic earthquake and a horrific resulting tsunami.  If Japan is to build new nuclear reactors, I believe they have learned to not build them on the susceptible Pacific Ocean  side, but to build them on the opposite side of the island facing China.  Thus, the island will serve as a barrier to the sort of damage that occurred during this terrible, historic, nightmarish tsunami.

I was called crazy to support nuclear power way before other environmentalists followed.  I put it out there because I knew that I was right.  And that the science and logic supported my position.  I will accept the crazy label as I continue to support the technology.  Even as I am vilified by the anti crowd and not acknowledged by the nuclear industry.  Science, logic and the right energy policy are their own great rewards.

EPA Proposes Standard for Mercury from Power Plants

National Pollution Standard

In response to a court deadline, today the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed the national standards for mercury, arsenic and other toxic air pollution from power plants. The new power plant mercury and air toxics standards would require many power plants to install widely available, proven pollution control technologies to cut harmful emissions of mercury, arsenic, chromium, nickel and acid gases.

The standards will prevent as many as 17,000 premature deaths and 11,000 heart attacks a year. The new proposed standards would also provide particular health benefits for children, preventing 120,000 cases of childhood asthma symptoms and about 11,000 fewer cases of acute bronchitis among children each year. The proposed standards would also avert more than 12,000 emergency room visits and hospital admissions and 850,000 fewer days of work missed due to illness.

Toxic air pollutants like mercury from coal- and oil-fired power plants have been shown to cause neurological damage, including lower IQ, in children exposed in the womb and during early development. The standards also address emissions of other toxic metals linked with cancer such as arsenic, chromium and nickel. Mercury and many of the other toxic pollutants also damage the environment and pollute our nation’s lakes, streams, and fish. In addition, cutting these toxic pollutants also reduces fine particle pollution, which causes premature death, heart disease, workdays lost to illness and asthma.

Power plants are the largest remaining source of several toxic air pollutants – responsible for half of mercury and more than half of acid gas emissions in the United States. In the power sector alone, coal-fired power plants are responsible for 99 percent of mercury emissions. Currently, more than half of all coal-fired power plants already deploy the widely available pollution control technologies that allow them to meet these important standards. Once final, these standards will ensure the remaining coal-fired plants, roughly 44 percent, take similar steps to decrease dangerous pollutants.

The proposed rule provides up to 4 years for facilities to meet the standards and, once fully implemented, will prevent 91 percent of mercury in coal from being released into the air.

More than 20 years ago, the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments mandated that EPA require control of toxic air pollutants including mercury. Since then, EPA has taken action to reduce mercury emissions from many high-emitting sources; however, there is still no national standard for mercury emissions from power plants. Today’s announcement is long awaited, coming 11 years after EPA announced it would set such limits for power plants, and following a February 2008 court decision that struck down the previous administration's mercury rule. In October 2009, EPA entered into a consent decree that required a proposal to be signed by March 16, 2011, and a final rule to be completed by November 2011.

The proposed standards also ensure that public health and economic benefits far outweigh costs of implementation. EPA estimates that for every dollar spent to reduce pollution from power plants, the American public and American businesses will see up to $13 in health and economic benefits. The total health and economic benefits of this standard are estimated to be as much as $140 billion annually.

As part of the public comment process, EPA will also hold public hearings on this proposed rule. Additional details on these events will be announced at a future date. (EPA)

More Information

Fire at Fukushima Unit #4

A fire is out of control at the #4 Unit at the Fukushim Daiishi nuclear power complex.  This comes after hydrogen explosions at Units 1, 2 & 3.  Plant workers are spraying ocean water laced with boron on those reactors to keep them from melting down.

Radiation hazards are causing massive evacuations near the facility.  Residents are being monitored for radiation exposure.

A 6.4 scale earthquake also rocked Tokyo today.

(Various news & agency sources)

Obama Still Supports Nukes & San Onofre Under Scrutiny

The Obama administration is maintaining its support for nuclear power even after three explosions at crippled nuclear power plants in Japan.  Senator Charles Schumer is also standing by nuclear power.  However, Senator Joe Lieberman has called for a 'time out' and Congressman Ed Markey is calling for a moratorium on building new plants. House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) is planning legislation aimed at streamlining the approval process for new plants.  The Japanese incidents come as a number of power companies have begun applying for Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licenses to build what would be the first new U.S. reactors in decades. The White House has supported the efforts.

Last year the administration approved $8.3 billion worth of Energy Department loan guarantees for utility giant Southern Co. to add two new reactors to its Vogtle nuclear plant in Georgia — a decision Obama announced personally. But the project would still need an NRC construction and operating license to move ahead.  The White House fiscal 2012 budget plan would give the Energy Department another $36 billion in loan guarantee authority for supporting new reactors, in addition to the roughly $10 billion worth the department has remaining.

And Obama used January’s State of the Union speech to float a “clean energy standard” that would require power companies to collectively supply 80 percent of U.S. electricity from various low-carbon sources — including nuclear power — by 2035.
 
The Center agrees with the position of the Obama administration.

Norris McDonald at control room

Norris McDonald touring plant

The San Onofre nuclear power plant in San Clemente, California is receiving scrutiny because it sits right on the coast like the Fukushima plant. There are worries that it is vulnerable to a tsunami.  Center President Norris McDoanald toured San Onofre on June 6, 2005. San Onofre is about an hour's drive south of Los Angeles and can be seen from Highway 5.  It is about a 30 minute drive from San Diego.  (The Hill, 3/14/2011)

San Onofre nuclear power plant

3rd Explosion at Fukushima Nuclear Complex: Reactor # 2

Tokyo Electric Power Company confirmed an explosion at the No. 2 reactor of its Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant.  According to the Nuclear Safety Agency, the explosion was heard at 6:10 a.m. Tuesday. 

1st Explosion

2nd Explosion

(Chicago Sun-Times, 2/13/2011)

EPA Proposes Deferring GHG Requirements For Biomass

EPA Proposes to Defer GHG Permitting Requirements for Industries that Use Biomass

Following through on a January 2011 commitment, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to defer, for three years, Clean Air Act permitting requirements for carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from bioenergy and other biogenic sources. This additional time will allow the agency to conduct a detailed examination of the science on this issue.

The Center is developing a biomass project in Mississippi and was perfectly prepared to conform to any GHG requirements.

Seeking advice of federal partners, states, a diverse group of expert scientists including industry and other stakeholders, and an independent scientific panel, will help to determine how these emissions should be treated under the EPA’s air permitting program. In July 2010, EPA issued a call for information seeking public comment.

New EPA guidance is also being provided to help permitting authorities determine that using biomass as a fuel can be considered the best available control technology for CO2 emissions from the large sources needing permits. The guidance can be used until EPA takes final action on the deferral.

Sources covered by this proposal would include facilities that emit CO2 from burning forest or agricultural products for energy, wastewater treatment, waste management (landfills), and fermentation processes for ethanol production. Facilities meeting the requirements under the agency’s greenhouse gas (GHG) reporting program will still need to report their CO2 emissions.

Beginning on January 2, 2011, the Clean Air Act required large plants and factories planning to make major modifications or build new facilities to obtain pre-construction permits addressing their GHG emissions. Emissions from small sources, such as farms and restaurants, are not covered by these permitting requirements.

EPA will accept comments on the proposed deferral for 45 days following publication in the Federal Register. (EPA)

More information

2nd Nuclear Power Plant Building Explosion in Japan

Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear complex suffered a second explosion today, destroying an outer building at unit 3. Unit 3, a third reactor at the six-reactor facility, lost its cooling capacity just as Unit 1 did on Saturday.  Engineers are flooding both units with seawater and boron to prevent a meltdown.

1st Explosion

3rd Explosion

The Center is concerned about the status of the spent fool pool, which contain used nuclear fuel.  These explosions could have compromised that fuel and could have spewed it into the surrounding environment.



Just as with Unite 1, the explosion at unit 3 did not damage the core containment structure.  These reactor vessel containment is quite robust, as is evident by remaining intact with a massive structural explosion right around it.  Both explosions resulted from a hydrogen build-up.   The hydrogen was produced by the exposure of the reactor’s fuel rods and their zirconium alloy casing to hot steam.  In normal conditions, the fuel rods would be covered and cooled by water.

The blast injured 11 people, one seriously and Japan’s nuclear agency warned those within 12 miles to stay indoors.  Trace amounts of radioactive elements cesium-137 and iodine-131 have been detected outside the plant.

The Fukushima Daiichi unit 3 was built by Toshiba, using a GE design.  Last year, the unit began using some reprocessed fuel known as “mox,” a mixture of plutonium oxide and uranium oxide, produced from recycled material from nuclear weapons as part of a program known as “Megatons to Megawatts.”  (Wash Post, 3/13/2011)

Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Complex

Japan Tsunami Puts Nuclear Reactor(s) In Spotlight

1st Explosion at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station

The 9.0-magnitude earthquake in Japan is putting a spotlight on the nuclear power plants due to fears of a dangerous leak.  The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant was crippled by today's earthquake and an explosion at the plant is very serious. Widespread evacuations have been implemented and officials declared a state of emergency.  Fukushima Daiichi was built 40 years ago by General Electric.

2nd Explosion

3rd Explosion

The explosion was not nuclear [as in fission nuclear bomb explosion], but was created by hydrogen gas mixing with oxygen in the air. A spark ignited the hydrogen.  The secondary containment structure around the reactor was partially destroyed, but the reactor itself remains embedded in concrete and steel.  The nuclear plant's cooling system failed to function properly after the nuclear reactor lost power and automatically shut down. Japanese officials initially ordered 2,800 people living around the facility to evacuate their homes as a precaution. The Fukushima plant is near the city of Onahama, about 170 miles northeast of Tokyo.



Japan's nuclear safety agency, Japan Nuclear Energy Safety Organization (JNES) has reported that pressure inside one of the boiling water reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi plant had risen well beyond normal levels. Hours after the evacuation order, the government announced that the plant, in northeastern Japan, will release slightly radioactive vapor from the unit to lower the pressure. Pressure was rising inside the Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear reactor after a backup generator also failed and the cooling system was unable to supply water to cool the reactor. The reactor core remains hot even after a shutdown.  The explosion is serious, particularly if it involved the containment dome [see video of Japanese nuclear power plant explosion, above].

Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant

The Vienna-based U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency is reporting that the four other Japanese nuclear power plants closest to the quake have been safely shut down.

The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant is operated by Tokyo Electric Power Company. They initially evacuated about 1,800 residents living within 2 kilometers (1.2 miles) of the Fukushima Dai-Ichi No. 1 reactor as a precaution. According to the Emergency Information Center of the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency, residents within 10 kilometers were told to stay indoors. The earthquake and tsunmai forced the automatic shutdown of 11 of the country's 55 nuclear power plants.

According to the World Nuclear Association, Japanese nuclear power plants are designed to withstand specified earthquake intensities evident in ground motion.  The plants are fitted with seismic detectors.  If these register ground motions of a set level, systems will be activated to automatically bring the plant to an immediate safe shutdown.  (ABC News International, 3/11/2011, Bloomberg, 3/11/2011, WNA, MSNBC, 3/11/2011)

Lisa P. Jackson Testifies Before Congress

Testimony Before the U.S. House Subcommittee on Energy and Power and Environment and Economy

March 11, 2011

Excerpts

Without adequate funding, EPA would be unable to implement or enforce the laws that protect Americans’ health, livelihoods, and pastimes. Big polluters would flout legal restrictions on dumping contaminants into the air, into rivers, and onto the ground. Toxic plumes already underground would reach drinking water supplies, because ongoing work to contain them would stop. There would be no EPA grant money to fix or replace broken water treatment systems. And the standards EPA is set to establish for harmful air pollution from smokestacks and tailpipes would remain missing from a population of sources that is not static but growing.

I will address Chairman Upton’s bill to eliminate portions of the Clean Air Act. The most extreme parts of that bill remain unchanged since I testified about it a month ago. It still would presume to overrule the scientific community on the scientific finding that carbon pollution endangers Americans’ health and wellbeing. Politicians overruling scientists on a scientific question – you might be remembered more for that than for anything else you do.

Testimony Before the U.S. House Committee on Agriculture

March 10, 2011

Excerpts

I also believe an important part of that commitment is to dispel certain myths about EPA’s work and its impact on agriculture.  These mischaracterizations are more than simple distractions; they prevent real dialogue to address our greatest problems.  Let me give you five examples:

One is the notion that EPA intends to regulate the emissions from cows – what is commonly referred to as a “Cow Tax.” This myth was started in 2008 by a lobbyist and –quickly de-bunked by the non-partisan, independent group fact-check.org – it still lives on. The truth is - EPA is proposing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in a responsible, careful manner and we have even exempted agricultural sources from regulation.

Another mischaracterization is the claim that EPA is attempting to expand regulation of dust from farms. We have no plans to do so, but let me be clear, the Clean Air Act passed by Congress mandates that the Agency routinely review the science of various pollutants, including Particulate Matter, which is directly responsible for heart attacks and premature deaths.

Another example involves spray drift. While no one supports pesticides wafting into our schools and communities, EPA does not support a “no-spray drift policy.” EPA has been on the record numerous times saying this, but the incorrect belief that EPA desires to regulate all spray drift persists.
Yet another mischaracterization is the false notion that EPA is planning on mandating Federal numeric nutrient limits on various States. Again, let me be clear: EPA is not working on any federal numeric nutrient limits.

And finally is the notion that EPA intends to treat spilled milk in the same way as spilled oil. This is simply incorrect. Rather, EPA has proposed, and is on the verge of finalizing an exemption for milk and dairy containers. This exemption needed to be finalized because the law passed by Congress was written broadly enough to cover milk containers.

Do NOT Tap Strategic Petroleum Reserve to Influence Market

PRESIDENT'S CORNER

By Norris McDonald

About every ten years or so, the issue of tapping the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) comes up as a tool for influencing rising oil prices.  DO NOT DO IT.  Never use the SPR to influence market prices.  We have been consistent in this message over our quarter century existence.  The reserve is just that, a strategic repository established to address a significant cut off in America's oil supply.

Now the Obama administration is considering releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to help Americans facing a spike in oil prices as a result of unrest in the Middle East and Africa.  White House Chief of Staff William Daley stated Sunday on NBC's Meet the Press"  that, "The issue of the reserves is one we're considering. It is something that only is done -- and has been done in very rare occasions. There's a bunch of factors that have to be looked at. And it is just not the price."

Oil prices have skyrocketed in recent weeks, climbing to nearly $105 per barrel on Friday from about $90 one month ago. That puts the price of a gallon of gas at a national average of $3.50, according to AAA.

The Strategic Petroleum Reserve contains 727 million barrels of oil. The caverns are designed as a storage facility to tap domestic reserves in case of a national emergency. In 2005, President Bush authorized the Department of Energy to approve loans of 13 million barrels of oil to refineries in Louisiana whose supply was cut off after Hurricane Katrina. This was an appropriate use of the reserve. (FOX News, 3/6/2011)

Crash of Another Climate Satellite Hurts Earth Science

Glory Satellite Rendering
 Image: Pacific Northwest
 National Laboratory

Problems with NASA's the launch vehicle, a Taurus XL rocket, sent the climate probe Glory satellite crashing into the Pacific Ocean last Friday morning. Preliminary data suggest that the rocket's fairing, a nose cone designed to shield Glory during the journey through Earth's atmosphere, did not detach the way it was supposed to. A similar problem two years ago caused the crash of another NASA climate satellite, the Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO).  The losses of Glory and the Orbiting Carbon Observatory will make rebuilding that capability harder.

The incident is a blow for climate science and the space agency's efforts to rebuild an Earth observation program weakened by years of lean budgets. It also comes during a protracted spending fight on Capitol Hill in which science agencies have become prime targets for House Republicans' budget ax.

Both satellites were considered key missions for NASA's Earth observation program.  NASA's decision to build and launch a copy of the failed Orbiting Carbon Observatory has taken money away from other key Earth and climate satellite missions, he said, and the loss of Glory could compound that problem.

In 2007, the National Academy of Sciences warned that the nation's Earth observing capability was "at great risk" after cumulative rounds of budget cutting. According to the NAS, the nation's ability to monitor severe weather, fresh water shortages and climate change all depended on increasing NASA's Earth science budget.

Glory was carrying two instruments that scientists hoped would improve the accuracy of climate models. One, the Total Irradiance Monitor (TIM), was designed to extend a 32-year record of fluctuations in the sun's energy output. Those fluctuations can influence Earth's climate over the long term. The amount of sun that reaches Earth, for instance, helps determine the amount of energy that is trapped in Earth's atmosphere by greenhouse gases.

Glory's crash could create a gap in that decades-long record. Glory's TIM was three times more accurate than the instrument it was designed to replace. The older TIM is flying aboard NASA's SORCE satellite, now in its eighth year in space. SORCE was designed to last just two and half years, and its batteries are now failing. (Scientific American, 3/7/2011)

Hydrocarbon Fuels Are Fossil Fuels That Run America

According to  Mr. Nansen G. Saleri, president and CEO of Quantum Reservoir Impact in Houston, former head of reservoir management for Saudi Aramco:

Nansen Saleri

"...the Obama administration's approach to U.S. domestic oil and gas production can be characterized as a strategy of ambivalence, an uneasy equilibrium between desire to lessen the role of fossil fuels and the reality of their necessity in a functioning U.S. economy."

Global petroleum production is approximately 85 million barrels of oil per day. According to various estimates, consumption is about 82 million barrels per day. Fossil fuels make up about 85% of total U.S. energy demand, which is estimated at about 45 million to 50 million barrels of oil equivalent per day. Energy imports, mainly crude oil, account for 20% of the total U.S. energy requirements.

According to a 2007 study by National Petroleum Council, at the request of the U.S. Department of Energy, approximately 61% of energy produced is lost due to factors such as poor insulation, gas-guzzling vehicles or suboptimal power plants. On average, only one out of three reservoir barrels is recovered, which translates to an overall efficiency of only 13% for oil that is converted to a usable form. Improving energy efficiency should be a top priority, not just in our surface usage but also at the point of extraction.

The planet is endowed with plentiful sources of natural gas and oil, conventional and unconventional. Some estimates place global unconventional gas resources at about 33,000 trillion cubic feet, or about five times the amount of proven reserves at the end of 2009. At current rates of global consumption, there are sufficient oil and gas supplies to last well into the next century. (WSJ, 3/9/2011)

Massive Sardine Kill in Southern Calif: Case of Suffocation?

It is being speculated that a million dead sardines in a Southern California harbor (Redondo Beach) came from suffocation as the fish crowded together in shalllow water and depleted the oxygen supply.  Officials from the California Department of Fish and Game believe the fish kill is the largest in California history.  that officials could recall—appeared to be a fluke natural occurrence. Officials tested the waters for oil or chemicals and discovered nothing unusual. There also wasn't any visual evidence of "red tide," an accumulation of algae that cuts off oxygen—a big one hit Redondo Beach five years ago—though scientists were conducting more tests.

Experts theorized that fierce winds Monday night may have driven the sardines into the harbor in search of safety from the roaring ocean. The fish then may have swum to the northern corner of the harbor at the Kings Harbor Marina in search of an exit; so many fish in a small space could have depleted oxygen and killed them. (WSJ, 3/9/2011)

EPA Updates Database on Impacts of Electricity Generation

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency updated its database that helps Americans understand the health and environmental impacts of electricity generation. EPA’s Emissions and Generation Integrated Resource Database (eGRID) and Power Profiler now include data from 2007, an update from 2005.

eGRID is a comprehensive database of emissions from almost all electric power generated in the United States. The data are widely used to show the impacts of electricity generation as well as the benefits from reduced electricity demand. eGRID contains emissions information for nitrogen oxides (NOx) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) which contribute to unhealthy air quality and acid rain in many parts of the country. eGRID also contains emissions information for carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O), which are greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change.

Power Profiler is a user friendly online application that uses eGRID data to show air emissions information and the type of electricity generation, such as coal or nuclear, in various regions of the country. By simply entering a zip code and selecting a utility, users can learn more about where their electricity comes from and what impact it has on air quality and the environment. (EPA)
More information about eGRID
More information about Power Profiler

EPA Says Chevy Volt Gets 93 Miles Per Gallon

The Chevrolet Volt can travel about 35 miles on a rechargeable battery pack before the car’s gas engine even comes on to recharge the batter pack and extend mileage.  That’s theoretically infinite gas mileage, but the EPA says the car gets the equivalent of 93 miles per gallon — apparently the highest rating ever for a U.S. car.  Base price: $40,280, although buyers can qualify for a $7,500 federal tax credit.  The Volt has two electric motors, a four-cylinder gas engine and a huge T-shaped battery pack run the vehicle.

You can plug the Volt into any standard electrical outlet for eight to 10 hours to charge up its batteries and the car will operate on electric power alone for miles. With current average U.S. electric rates GM estimates it will cost roughly $1.50 per day to travel 35 miles. After that, considering mpg in the mid to high 30s, will depend on gasoline rates. GM has chosen LG Chem of Korea to supply the lithium-ion cells.  The electric motor powers the Volt at all times, the gas engine is just a generator for making electricity once the battery is depleted.  (GM Volt, Biz Smart, 3/11/2011, GM Volt)

Obama Nominates Gary Locke as Ambassador to China

Gary Locke

US President Barack Obama will nominate Commerce Secretary Gary Locke as next US ambassador to China.  Locke would replace the current ambassador, Jon Huntsman, who is stepping down on April 30 and is considering a run for president.  Locke's appointment will need confirmation by the US Senate.  Locke became the first Chinese-American Commerce Secretary when he joined the Obama administration in 2009.  He is a former governor of Washington state. (China Daily, 3/8/2011)

Rupert Murdoch Is Carbon Neutral

News Corporation Achieves Its Carbon Neutral Goal and Looks To Become More Efficient

Rupert Murdoch

According to Rupert Murdoch, his News Corporation has achieved the goal, set nearly four years ago, of becoming carbon neutral by the end of 2010. News Corporation owns the Fox News Channel, 20th Century Fox, Harper Collins, Wall Street Journal, MySpace and the National Rugby League. The company also introduced other short-term and long-term goals to guide its environmental efforts moving forward.

New Corporation made the commitment in 2007 to embed the values of energy efficiency and environmental sustainability into all of their businesses. Making News Corp.'s operations more efficient will save the company millions of dollars. Consolidating its data centers will save News Corp. $20 million a year and reduce related emissions by 15 percent once fully implemented.

The Center hereby requests that News Corporation donate some of its carbon offset credits to our Carbon Mercantile Exchange (CMX).

The investments in energy efficiency yield an average of $180 per ton of carbon avoided, according to Liba Rubenstein, the company's global energy initiative director. News Corporation's absolute emissions in fiscal year 2010 were 2 percent lower than 2006 levels, and 9 percent lower than peak emissions in 2008. The company offset 110 percent of its FY 2010 carbon footprint by investing in emissions reduction projects that include capturing landfill gas and destroying potent refrigerants. Rubenstein's team will now work toward a series of measurable 2015 goals, including:

• Reducing absolute greenhouse gas by 15 percent, compared to 2006 levels
• Reducing greenhouse gas intensity by at least 15 percent
• Investing in clean energy equal to 20 percent of electricity used
• Engaging its 100 largest suppliers on improving their environmental impacts
• Measuring its waste footprint and developing a strategy to reduce it

News Corp. also created a set of intentionally broad long-term goals with no time horizon:

• Power all of its operations with clean energy

• Grow its business without growing its greenhouse gas emissions

• Minimize the amount of solid waste sent to landfill from its production operations

• Continue to engage its readers, employees and customers on sustainability

Its News Unlimited arm in Australia, for example, developed an internal brand and program called One Degree that helped reduce its carbon footprint by 18 percent. Fox Home Entertainment joined forces with Walmart to make DVD packaging lighter, which helped to reduce raw material and transportation emissions.

The initiative also launched a series of efficiency projects that, as Murdoch noted, delivered a return on investment of less than two years. Such a fast ROI seemed unbelievable in the case of a massive solar energy system being built at a Dow Jones campus in New Jersey (pictured at left). The project will supply up to half of the site's energy needs when completed and will be the largest system at a single commercial site in the U.S. (Climate Biz, 3/1/2011)

EPA Seeks Extension of Permit Requirements for Pesticides

EPA Requests Extension on Clean Water Act Permit Requirement for Pesticide Discharges

Today, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is requesting an extension to allow more time for pesticide operators to obtain permits for pesticide discharges into U.S. waters. EPA is requesting that the deadline be extended from April 9, 2011 to October 31, 2011. During the period while the court is considering the extension request, permits for pesticide applications will not be required under the Clean Water Act.

EPA is developing a pesticide general permit in response to the 6th Circuit Court’s 2009 decision, which found that discharges from pesticides into U.S. waters were pollutants, and, therefore, will require a permit under the Clean Water Act as of April 9, 2011. The final permit will reduce discharges of pesticides to aquatic ecosystems, thus helping to protect the nation’s waters and public health.

The extension request is important to allow sufficient time for EPA to engage in Endangered Species Act consultation and complete the development of an electronic database to streamline requests for coverage under the Agency’s general permit. It also allows time for authorized states to finish developing their state permits and for permitting authorities to provide additional outreach to stakeholders on pesticide permit requirements.

EPA’s general permit will be available to cover pesticide discharges to waters of the U.S. in MA, NH, NM, ID, OK, AK, DC, most U.S. territories and Indian country lands, and many federal facilities.
More information

Fluorescent Lamp Disposal & Recycling

Click on Image to Enlarge

How should you dispose of spent  fluorescent lamps?

The problem is that the lamps contain a toxic material: mercury. The average household probably throws them in the trash can.  But large firms with hundreds or thousand of lamps face violating state and federal environmental regulations by simply tossing them in the trash.  If violations are found, government officials issue citations for fines ranging from the tens to the hundreds of thousands of dollars. In August of 2009, the U.S. EPA fined New York City $50,000 for violating environmental regulations, including improper disposal of mercury containing lamps. The city was also required to launch a $300,000 recycling program [Source: Waste & Recycling News].

The mercury contained in every fluorescent lamp is potently toxic; just one gram is capable of polluting a 20 acre lake for an entire year. Once polluted, a mercury tainted environment can contaminate wildlife, including human food sources such as fish. All told, about 650 million mercury containing lamps burn out each year, creating a major potential for mercury contamination if lamps are not recycled [Source: IFMA Daily.].

Recycling fluorescent bulbs is a very good option.

Such programs can also support green marketing initiatives.

Key data points for facility assessment include: facility square footage, fixture and lamp count, types of lamps in use, regulations governing the facility, relamping schedule, and rate of lamp burnout.

Facilities of more than 150,000 square feet require recycling methods capable of handling hundreds of spent bulbs per month. One innovative approach for larger sites is to complete the first step in the process—crushing—before lamps leave the facility. When crushed and stored on-site prior to recycling, the bulbs take up less space than intact lamps, reducing storage requirements by up to 80%. Because no boxing of lamps is needed, facility managers (fms) can also save up to 20 hours of labor per 1,000 lamps.

For facilities of less than 150,000 square feet, fms may wish to consider lamp and ballast recycling containers. This approach allows fms to fill the appropriate container as lamps or ballasts wear out and mail it back when full. All the fm has to do is use the included, prepaid shipping label.

For even simpler recycling, fms may wish to join special programs where a replacement recycling container is automatically shipped for every container returned. This approach can save time and minimize paperwork for fms. (Today's Facility Manager, Daniel Krall, Feb 2011 Issue)

Renewable Portfolio Standards

Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) or Renewable Electricity Standards (RES) are being used by states to force utilities to development renewable power resources.  These regulations require utilities to source a specified percentage of their power from qualified renewable sources. States adopt RPS programs to incentivize the development of new capacity, reduce their carbon footprints and mitigate volatility in fossil fuel prices. While such regulations have cost impacts to ratepayers, proponents argue that their benefits exceed their costs.

In the U.S., roughly 30 states have adopted such regulations. Each jurisdiction's program varies depending on local policy objectives and political climates. The U.S. has no national RPS. In recent years, House and Senate initiatives have failed to obtain support.

There are serious concerns about cost impacts. The 2007 Lawrence Berkeley report suggests that existing state RPS programs resulted in rate increases of less than 1.2 percent. A 2008 California study predicts that a more ambitious 33 percent RPS combined with significantly expanded energy efficiency would increase costs 4 percent.

Massachusetts developer Cape Wind Associates recently reached an agreement with utility National Grid to sell 50 percent of the output from its 454 MW offshore wind project at a price starting at 18.7 cents per kilowatt-hour, escalating 3.5 percent annually for the 15-year life of the contract. The contract, which has been approved by the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities, is projected to add $1.50 to the average residential consumer's monthly bill.  This proposal, driven largely by Massachusetts' ambitious RPS, strikes many as a high price for power. The average U.S. retail rate for electricity across all sectors is just less than 10 cents per kilowatt-hour, with consumers in many states paying 7 cents or less.

The Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission's approved the National Grid and Deepwater Wind's proposed Block Island Wind Project contract at 24.4 cents per kilowatt-hour.)
Other regulatory approaches include federal and state tax credits, feed-in tariffs and long-term contracts for renewable projects' output that encourage power developers to build new renewable projects. These measures are not mutually exclusive with portfolio standards.

Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley is asking lawmakers to underwrite a plan for Maryland to generate some of the nation's first offshore wind power. His plan would incentivize a $1.5 billion field of giant turbines about 11 1/2 miles off Ocean City. It would require Maryland utilities to buy power from the wind farm at a price far above the current market rate and at which its developers agree they could turn a profit.

According to the governor's office, the cost of the subsidy would be spread among all Maryland electric customers in the form of monthly surcharges. The fee has been estimated at $1.44 a month for residential customers, but an analysis released by legislative budget analysts Wednesday night pegged the initial fee at $3.61 a month. For the state's largest industrial power users, the surcharges would add up to tens of thousands of dollars a month.

O'Malley's offshore wind proposal would essentially force the start of a new energy market in Maryland. Under the governor's plan, utility companies would be required to buy wind power at one fixed price for at least 20 years. That price would be set by the state's Public Service Commission next year. The plan assumes that developers will be awarded federal leases late this year or early in 2012, that construction would begin in 2014 and that the first turbines would begin spinning in 2016.

According to cost modeling by the governor's office, which assumes the PSC signs a 25-year contract, Maryland pegs offshore wind costs when the power comes online at about 16.4 cents per kilowatt hour, or more than 60 percent higher than the rate at which most utilities in the state are buying power. Like Delaware, the model assumes the developer receives an annual price increase of 2.5 percent to cover inflation.

But Maryland's budget analyst says the governor's model doesn't factor in all of the costs. The analyst's report estimates an "effective rate" of 21 cents per kilowatt hour for Maryland offshore wind power in 2016, rising to 23 cents by 2040.

By comparison, long-term projections released in January by the U.S. Energy Information Administration forecast that traditional electric power costs - now at an average of 11.1 cents - will fall slightly over nearly the same period.

There is also disagreement on how much residential utility bills would likely increase as a result of the wind project. The state originally forecasted an increase of $1.61 a month, but adjusted that downward by 17 cents, saying transmission charges would decrease. Utilities, however, say transmission charges are unlikely to decrease for very long and probably not by that much. The budget analyst projected the cost at $3.61 a month, or $43.31 a year, in 2016. The amount would decrease significantly over the life of the contract, to $1.91 a month, or $22.95 a year, in 2040.

The prospect of building wind farms off Maryland's shores has lured companies such as Bluewater, a wind power firm now owned by NRG, one of the country's biggest utilities. Bluewater has proposed building an offshore wind farm that would provide energy for as many as 136,000 households from turbines 12 miles off the Maryland shore. The company also has proposals for New Jersey and Delaware.

Bluewater has bid on 175,000 acres off Maryland. There were seven competitors, including Maryland Offshore LLC, a joint venture of Apex Wind Energy, based in Charlottesville, and Beowulf Energy LLC of Easton, Md., which employs Enright.

(Electric Light & Power, Todd J. Griset, Jan-Feb, 2011,  Wash Post, 3/3/2011)

New Senior Adviser on the Chesapeake Bay

Jeff Corbin, left, is the new senior adviser on the EPA’s effort to restore and preserve the Chesapeake Bay. Jeff currently serves as senior adviser to Region 3 Administrator Shawn Garvin, with whom he works closely on issues involving the bay. In his new position, Jeff will help coordinate all aspects of our strategic Chesapeake Bay initiative and will serve as the chief liaison among the Office of the Administrator; federal, state and local government partners; community and nonprofit stakeholders; and our colleagues throughout the EPA.

Before joining Region 3 in January 2010, Jeff was appointed assistant secretary of natural resources for the Commonwealth of Virginia by then-Governor Tim Kaine. Earlier, he spent almost a decade with the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, ultimately serving as its Virginia deputy director and senior scientist. Jeff also worked as an environmental geologist and water quality specialist for the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission during the early 1990s. He began his career as an environmental chemist with the Science Applications International Corporation. He has a master’s degree in oceanography from the University of Rhode Island and a bachelor’s degree in marine science from the University of South Carolina.

Jeff is a Coast Guard-licensed small vessel captain and a certified scuba diver with 30 years of experience. (EPA)

Lisa Jackson Testimony Before Senate Environment Committee

Barbara Boxer

EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson
Testimony
Before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works

As prepared for delivery.

Madame Chair, Ranking Member Inhofe, and Members of the Committee:

Thank you for inviting me to testify about President Obama’s Fiscal Year 2012 budget request for the Environmental Protection Agency.

Lisa P. Jackson

Congress enacted the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and America’s other bedrock environmental protection laws on a broadly bipartisan basis. It did so to protect American children and adults from pollution that otherwise would make their lives shorter, less healthy, and less prosperous. It did so to make the air and drinking water in America’s communities clean enough to attract new employers. It did so to enable America’s local governments to revitalize abandoned and polluted industrial sites. It did so to safeguard the pastime of America’s forty million anglers. It did so to protect the farms whose irrigation makes up a third of America’s surface freshwater withdrawals. And it did so to preserve the livelihoods of fishermen in American great waters such as the Chesapeake Bay and the Gulf of Mexico.

Congress gave EPA the responsibility of implementing and enforcing those laws. And, each year, Congress appropriates the money that makes EPA’s implementation and enforcement work possible.

If Congress ever gutted that funding, then EPA would be unable to implement or enforce the laws that protect Americans’ health, livelihoods, and pastimes. Big polluters would flout legal restrictions on dumping contaminants into the air, into rivers, and onto the ground. Toxic plumes already underground would reach drinking water supplies, because ongoing work to contain them would stop. There would be no EPA grant money to fix or replace broken water treatment systems. And the standards that EPA is set to establish for harmful air pollutants from smokestacks and tailpipes would remain missing from a population of sources that is not static but growing.

So if Congress slashed EPA’s funding, concentrations of harmful pollution would increase from current levels in the places Americans live, work, go to school, fish, hike, and hunt. The result would be more asthma attacks, more missed school and work days, more heart attacks, more cancer cases, more premature deaths, and more polluted waters.

Needless to say, then, I fervently request and deeply appreciate continued bipartisan support in Congress for funding the essential work that keeps American children and adults safe from uncontrolled amounts of harmful pollution being dumped into the water they drink and the air they breathe.

President Obama believes that our federal government must spend less money. Decreasing federal spending is no longer just a prudent choice; it is now an unavoidable necessity. Accordingly, the President has proposed to cut EPA’s annual budget nearly thirteen percent from its current level.

That cut goes beyond eliminating redundancies. We have made difficult, even painful, choices. We have done so, however, in a careful way that preserves EPA’s ability to carry out its core responsibilities to protect the health and wellbeing of America’s children, adults, and communities.

You have been reviewing the budget request for more than two weeks now, so I will not march through all its details. Rather, I will provide just a few examples of the difficult choices we have made while preserving fundamental safeguards.

This request provides 2.5 billion dollars, a decrease of 947 million, for the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds. Future-year budgets for the SRFs will adjust, taking into account repayments. EPA, the states, and community water systems will build on past successes while working toward the Fiscal Year 2012 goal of ensuring that over 90 percent of the population served by community water systems receives drinking water that meets all applicable health standards.

This budget requests an additional 6.4 million dollars to conduct integrated pilot projects in several communities, including disadvantaged ones, to evaluate and reduce risks from toxic air pollution through regulatory, enforcement, and voluntary efforts. An additional 3.7 million dollars will improve our monitoring of toxic air toxic pollution and our dissemination of that data to state, local and tribal governments, and to the public.

The budget contains 350 million dollars for programs and projects strategically chosen to target the most significant environmental problems in the Great Lakes ecosystem. That represents a cut of 125 million dollars from Fiscal Year 2010, which was the first year of the initiative. We will implement the most important projects for Great Lakes Restoration and achieve visible results.

With this budget’s 16 million dollar investment in the Enhancing Chemical Safety Initiative, we will take action to reduce chemical risks, increase the pace of chemical hazard assessments, and provide the public with greater access to information on toxic chemicals. We will use the funds to implement chemical risk reduction steps that address impacts on children’s health and on disadvantaged, low-income, and indigenous populations.

Thank you, Madame Chair. I look forward to the Committee’s questions