TVA under growing pressure to clean up its act
The Tennessee Valley Authority is facing mounting demands to leave behind its dirty energy past and become a clean energy leader.
Last week, a federal judge denied the federal utility's appeal for more time to install pollution controls on coal-fired power plants that are dirtying North Carolina's air, the Asheville (N.C.) Citizen-Times reports. U.S. District Court Judge Lacy Thornburg decided against giving TVA more time to address emissions from four coal-fired power plants within 100 miles of North Carolina.
The plants in question are Widows Creek in northeast Alabama; Bull Run near Oak Ridge, Tenn.; John Sevier near Rogersville, Tenn.; and the Kingston plan in eastern Tennessee's Roane County, where the disastrous coal ash spill occurred last December.
In January, Thornburg ordered TVA to clean up pollution from the four plants. The decision came in a lawsuit filed against TVA in 2006 by N.C. Attorney General Roy Cooper that sought improved pollution controls on a total of 11 TVA coal-fired power plants. Thornburg's January ruling held that seven of the plants were too far from North Carolina to have any impact there.
TVA, the nation's largest public power provider, asked the court for extra time to address the pollution, arguing that the accelerated timetable imposed by Thornburg is a "manifest injustice" and a "fiscal problem," according to the paper. But the judge rejected that argument and ordered the company to move ahead with the cleanup.
The requirement that TVA capture more of its pollution before it leaves the plants' smokestacks will make it even more urgent for the company to improve the way it handles such combustion waste in order to avoid a repeat of last year's massive ash spill. In the latest news from that ongoing disaster, evidence has emerged that TVA may have manipulated science methods to downplay water contamination, with The Nation reporting that the company appears to have intentionally collected water samples from clean spots in the Emory River to make the pollution from the spill seem less severe than it actually is.
This is a critical moment for TVA's future, with President Barack Obama expected to appoint four new board members in the coming weeks. The Tennessean reports that at least four Tennessee residents have been contacted by the White House about the job: real estate investor and environmental activist John Noel and former U.S. Senate candidate Bob Tuke, both of Nashville; state Rep. Mike McDonald of Portland; and Middle Tennessee State University economics professor Barbara Haskew. A coalition of environmental groups recently sent a letter to the White House asking the president to use the appointments to transform TVA into a clean energy leader.
Meanwhile, TVA is facing a legal challenge to its plans for building nuclear reactors at its Bellefonte plant in Jackson County, Ala. The Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League recently filed a petition asking a federal appeals court to review the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's reinstatement of construction permits for the reactors, with a representative of the advocacy group charging the NRC with "bending over backwards to accommodate TVA and ignoring their role as regulators."
Back in the 1970s, TVA had planned to build two reactors at the plant -- Bellefonte 1 and 2 -- but ditched the plans after spending some $4 billion. Then last year, TVA requested a license to build two new reactors there -- Bellefonte 3 and 4 -- while also asking the NRC to re-instate the permits for 1 and 2. BREDL charges that TVA has illegally attempted to circumvent the National Environmental Policy Act by failing to fully consider the impacts of four nuclear reactors at the site on TVA's Guntersville Reservoir.
(Haze from air pollution in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park as captured by the National Parks Service's webcam)
- Email this story
Categories:
Comments
re: TVA under growing pressure to clean up its act
The high cost of fuel negatively affects every sector of our economy from higher production and shipping costs to increased costs of electricity and fuel driven services. This past year did serious damage to our economy and society. There could be no better investment in America than to invest in energy independence. Create cheap clean electricity, badly needed new green collar jobs and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. What a win-win situation that would be for our economy, society and environment. Jeff Wilson has a profound new book out called The Manhattan Project of 2009 Energy Independence Now. There could be no better investment of bail out money than to invest in energy independence. http://www.themanhattanprojectof2009.com We seriously need to get on with energy independence.
re: TVA under growing pressure to clean up its act
Since nuclear power plants produce electricity in direct competition with coal fired power plants, I would think it is a good thing for TVA to be investing in their development. Their completion and operation would allow TVA to make a huge improvement in air quality by simply shutting down the coal burning stations rather than invest in a futile attempt to clean up their emissions. I am still wondering why the Institute for Southern Studies is so negative about the technology.
As you pointed out, removing hazardous material from the stacks of a coal plant simply pushes the problem somewhere else, since the material that used to exit out of the stack is still part of the fuel and still a high volume, high mass waste product of the combustion process.
With nuclear fission reactors, despite all of the attention paid to their waste problem, all of the material is already retained in controlled locations requiring little space. We know where almost every gram that has been produced is stored and we know that no one has been harmed by exposure to the stored byproducts.
I actually have a hard time considering the material to be a waste product since it still contains about 95-97% of the initial potential energy of the heavy metal fuel. For commercial reasons, our current nuclear facilities only scratch the surface of the potential energy output before the operators remove the fuel and insert new fuel. Even so, the fuel rods last for about 4.5 years and the total waste quantity removed from large reactors each 18 months only fills up about three containers, each of which need about as much space as a typical parking space for their long term storage. It is extremely compact compared to the enormous piles of ash for an equivalent amount of power production from a coal plant.
In 60 years of operation, even with our wasteful once through then out fuel cycle, a large nuclear plant would need to store about 120 containers of used material. Compare that to the billions of gallons of sludge that were released at Kingston and you can see why I favor fission over combustion. (I favor fission over wind and solar because I like my lights and computer to come on when I flip the switch, regardless of the weather conditions.)
Rod Adams
Publisher, Atomic Insights
Host and producer, The Atomic Show Podcast
re: TVA under growing pressure to clean up its act
Rod, thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts. To answer your question, the Institute for Southern Studies is negative about nuclear technology because 1) even normally-operating nuclear reactors release health-damaging pollution, and 2) the world is facing a serious climate crisis for which nuclear power offers no solution. Energy efficiency and renewable energy, on the other hand, do offer effective -- and environmentally just -- solutions to the climate crisis.
re: TVA under growing pressure to clean up its act
Sue - please tell me how you intend to provide reliable energy through your chosen methods. Once again I will mention that we would not be facing as serious a climate challenge today if we had simply continued building nuclear plants at the same measured pace that we achieved in the mid 1970s. With that rate of construction, the US would have been able to stop burning coal by about 2000.
I have a difficult time believing your claims about health damaging pollution considering the fact that I used to seal myself up for months at a time with an operating reactor and I was the guy who had to review the atmosphere control logs every week. I tend to believe the measurements rather than the assertions by people with an agenda. (It is pretty obvious that an organization called "beyondnuclear.org" has an agenda. Yes, I also have an agenda, guess that makes us even.)
BTW - I know you are a fan of Lovins. Do you have any idea what his academic or professional qualifications are?
Rod Adams
Publisher, Atomic Insights
Host and producer, The Atomic Show Podcast
re: TVA under growing pressure to clean up its act
For details on how the U.S. can reliably and sustainably meet its energy needs, see Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free: A Roadmap for U.S. Energy Policy by Dr. Arjun Makhijani.
Whether or not nuclear power advocate Rod Adams chooses to believe health damaging pollution is emitted by normally operating reactors, the fact that they release such pollution is well-documented -- and not only by anti-nuclear advocates. See for example the NRC's own information on radioactive groundwater contamination from nuclear reactor sites, or read the plants' Radiological Environmental Operating Reports submitted regularly to the NRC, available through the agency's ADAMS database. Among the chemicals regularly released to the environment by nuclear reactors are cesium-137, iodine-131, strontium-90 and tritium, a radioactive isotope of hydrogen.
We know from the National Academy of Sciences' latest report on the matter, titled Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation-VII, that there is no safe threshold for radiation exposure, with even barely detectable doses able to cause DNA damage that can lead to cancer.
As for Amory Lovins qualifications, he began college at Harvard and then transferred to Oxford, where he studied physics and became a junior research fellow and a university don. He holds 10 honorary doctorates and has received a MacArthur "Genius" Fellowship, the Right Livelihood Award (aka "Alternative Nobel") and numerous other awards and prizes.
re: TVA under growing pressure to clean up its act
Sue:
Here is a link with exhaustive information related to studies on the health effects of low level radiation doses. Please never forget that the Earth is an always has been a place where radiation is a natural part of the environment. Humans evolved in this environment; our bodies have a number of mechanisms that allow us to survive and repair damage.
Nuclear Energy and Health: And the Benefits of Low-Dose Radiation Hormesis
With regard to the information written about Lovins:
"As for Amory Lovins qualifications, he began college at Harvard and then transferred to Oxford, where he studied physics and became a junior research fellow and a university don. He holds 10 honorary doctorates and has received a MacArthur "Genius" Fellowship, the Right Livelihood Award (aka "Alternative Nobel") and numerous other awards and prizes."
A careful reader with experience in the language of academia will recognize the complete lack of any mention of an earned degree. When it comes to honorary degrees, they are often awarded for activities that have nothing to do with completing a recognized course of study with graded tests and papers or a defense of a thesis to a qualified group of questioners.
re: TVA under growing pressure to clean up its act
For readers who aren't nuclear experts, radiation hormesis is the hypothesis that chronic low doses of ionizing radiation can actually boost health by stimulating repair mechanisms that protect against disease. That hypothesis remains controversial, with the National Academy of Sciences' National Research Council, the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, and the U.N. Scientific Committee on the Effects of Ionizing Radiation in agreement that the evidence does not clearly show such benefits. On the other hand, we have the National Research Council's BEIR-VII report, which found no safe threshold for radiation exposure with even barely detectable doses able to cause DNA damage that can lead to cancer.
re: TVA under growing pressure to clean up its act
Sue Sturgis; a fine article about the TVA. I know that it is very hard to speak “to the other side” of an issue, particularly when it comes to nuclear.
My position is I still fear the horrific results of a runaway reactor anywhere in America. Of course, there always is the comeback that such a disaster has never struck the U.S. and that is quite beside the point. Near disasters is another matter.
Without a litany of these and if you accept my assumption, the last organization I would want to see expand their nuclear capability is the Tennessee Valley Authority. Kids should not be allowed to play with matches.
I have been writing about the TVA for several years (my book on it, I promise, still is forthcoming) and I have discovered there is a pattern, a TVA “culture”, that pervades it top to bottom. I have much anecdotal information to back up that assertion. (See http://norsworthyopinion.com for my most recent writings about the TVA).
The TVA “problem” actually is much bigger than arguments pro or con energy from nuclear, hydro, coal-fired, solar, wind, etc.
A couple of recent precedent-setting matters come to mind. First, it was TVA’s condescension to abide by an edict from the state of Tennessee regarding the Kingston ash dam catastrophe. (That’s what Tom Kilgore, CEO of the TVA finally admitted to, a “catastrophe”).
The other of long-reaching consequence was when U.S. District Court Judge Lacy Thornburg ruled in January that, in essence, the law that TVA “can sue and be sued” actually is enforceable.
For a very long time, TVA has claimed sovereign immunity from prosecution because it is a federal agency. In other words, it was alright for TVA to bring suit but others could not. The TVA acceded to the January judgment against it but later asked for an extension of the court-mandated deadline to cleanup four coal-fired plants. The judge said no extension. TVA says it can’t meet the deadline.
Now comes the classic case – a federal agency pitted against another branch of the same (I think) federal government at loggerheads.
To add insult to the outrageously unspeakable, TVA now is seeking that same “immunity” from the prosecution of numerous suits filed against it in the Kingston disaster.
The corollary to this whole mess is the upcoming decision of the Obama administration to replace four of nine TVA board members, two new ones and two whose terms expire in May. Will it expand the nationalization of the electricity industry (going on for 75 years with the TVA) or decide to chuck the whole mess and sell off TVA’s assets and try to reduce some of its present $25 billion debt? My choice is the latter.
Ernest Norsworthy
re: TVA under growing pressure to clean up its act
We need to be positive.
We need to campaign for natural gas conversion from coal.
This includes the Duke Cliffside plant.
There is a glut of gas into the foreseeable future and the cost is low.
Remember, this also eliminates the pollution incurred when transporting coal.
eb
Share this article
