What Would Hal Willard Say About the North Anna Earthquake?

Illustration is an adaptation of the Google satellite view of the North Anna plant, 11 miles as the crow flies from the August 23 5.8 earthquake's epicenter. (H/T to Sue Sturgis at the ISS whose post  alerted me to the 1970's WaPo coverage).

Interesting that the The The Washington Post (WaPo)  writers didn't look in their own archives when writing about the August 23 earthquake, whose epicenter was 11 miles as the crow flies from Dominion Energy's North Anna nuclear power plant. As a result, no articles there about the 5.8 quake mention that officials of VEPCO  knew it was building on a fault line and got in trouble for concealing that from the NRC during the 70s. The paper started reporting on the story in 1973 when the Atomic Energy Commission began its investigation of  VEPCO. Hal Willard, the principle reporter on the story during that time, died in 2009. At the end of this post, you'll find a timeline compiled from the articles. More later when I can access the WaPo articles--anything before 1987 is not available for free online and the Roanoke County library doesn't have the the WaPo on microfilm.


The North Anna Environmental Coalition,  with the late June Allen as president (d. 2010), fought construction and operating licenses for the plant  during that time. By 2005, the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League, fighting a third and fourth reactor at the North Anna site, issued a report from report on an earlier scandal regarding how the plant came to be constructed above a geological fault, which might be prone to earthquakes:

The story begins in 1967, the year Vepco [Virginia Electric Power--Dominion Energy's former name for a portion of the current corporation] awarded the initial contract of $446 million for the North Anna Nuclear Station on the banks of the Pamunkey River in Louisa County. Vepco hired Dames & Moore, an environmental consulting firm, to do geology studies in support of the license application. Within a year evidence of seismic faults were found but Vepco resisted the findings. The truth would not remain hidden for long.

 I found this is the court documents (see paragraph 10).  Of course we know in hindsight that the conclusion was not accurate, but I'm wondering if it was even scientifically accurate at the time:

the site was as stable as one without a fault and therefore it was determined that the presence of the fault did not require changes in design specifications for units one and two and also that the fault had no bearing on approval of the construction permits for units three and four.

Renee Parsons (email) writes of June Allen:

...Allen’s investigative talents and ability to cut-through utility and NRC double-speak were apparent as she became an eloquent, hard-nosed intervener in 1972 pointing out what she saw as collusion between the NRC and Virginia Electric Power Company.  A classical pianist who wore pearls, Allen testified before Congress identifying the “nuclear-industrial complex” as an inherently unsafe technology and frequently attended VEPCO stockholder meetings. On one occasion, when spied in the audience, VEPCO’s Chairman stopped the meeting, extended an arm,  pointed a finger directly at June and announced with great indignation, “There is Mrs. Allen.”

The Washington Post (35 articles):

• August 28, 1973:  The Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) begins its investigation of whether the Virginia Electric and Power Co. (VEPCO) withheld information about a geological fault beneath its nuclear power plant under construction on the North Anna River in Louisa County, VA.((North Anna) "AEC Probes Vepco on Site Data, Hal Willard, August 29, 1973, B1)
• September 21, 1973:  VEPCO ordered to try immediately to find out if the lake itself could cause an earthquake. (" Quake Check Ordered At Nuclear Plant Site," Hal Willard, September,  22, 1973, C2)
• September, 1973: WaPo reports on the geology and North Anna  in a 2,000+ word story ("A Geologic Fault Bedevils Reactor: The 'Devil' and the Reactor -- A Haunting Question,  Hal Willard, September 27, 1973, G1)
• AEC Officials testify there will be a tightening up of plant requiremenets and inspection procedures to avoid "surprises" like discovery of a geologic fault beneath North Anna. ("AEC Acts to Avoid 'Surprises,'"Hal Willard Washington Post Staff Writer, October 4, 1973, H1)
• October 17, 1973:  AEC orders VEPCO to show why it should be allowed to continue construction of North Anna. ("Vepco Told To Defend A-Plant Site, Hal Willard, October 18, 1973, C1)
• November, 1973: VEPCO tells AEC that North Anna construction should continue because of "probability that the site will ultimately be found perfectly safe" -- and it would cost $127 million to stop work for six months .("Continue A-Plant, Firm Asks," Hal Willard, November 12, 1973, C1)
• March 2, 1974: AEC's regulatory staff reports regarding geological faults, that North Anna site is safe, ("AEC Staff Finds Site Of Va. A-Plant Is Safe," March 3, 1974; D4)
• March 20, 1974: Citizens fighting construction of the North Anna charge that the federal government is withholding geological evidence in the case. "Secrecy Charged on Vepco A-Plant Plan Study" Hal Willard, March 21, 1974, C8)
• April, 1974: AEC panel concludes that the partially North Anna plant is not on an active earthquake site and that work on it should continue.("AEC Finds In Favor of Va. A-Plant, April 17, 1974, B4)
• August, 1974:  Environmentalists have been unable to block construction of North Anna, but economic and labor problems bring work there to a virtual standstill. ("Work Halts At Nuclear Power Unit, Hal Willard, August 3, 1974, A7)
• February 5, 1975:   A piece on Dr. John W. Funkhouser, who discovered the geologic fault beneath North Anna ("Legalities Swirl Over Nuclear Plant:  What Was in Deleted Deposition?" Hal Willard, February 6, 1975,  F1)
• November 7, 1974: Earthquake recorded about 30 miles southwest of North Anna.  Both AEC and VEPCO say such a tremor would have no impact on a completed plant. (" Quake Felt in Va. In A-Plant Vicinity," Ron Shaffer, November 16, 1974, E3)
• February, 1975: The drinking habits of  the murdered Funkhouser brought up in hearing to determine whether VEPCO officials made false or misleading statements to the NRC. ("Geologist's Drinking Habits Unearthed," Hal Willard,  February 20, 1975, F1)
• March, 1975: Post prints piece on rising electric rates (" Electric Companies Stub Toes in the Dark," Hal Willard,  March 20, 1975,  D1)
• May 28, 1975:  NRC staff recommends that VEPCO pay the largest fine in the history of the peacetime atom for making false statements about the geologic fault beneath North Anna. ("Nuclear Panel Urged To Fine Vepco Heavily, Hal Willard,  May 29, 1975, B3)May 29, 1975:  A VEPCO VP testifies that customers, not stockholders, should have to pay any fines levied for the company managements accused errors in judgement. ("Vepco: Let Users Pay," Hal Willard May 30, 1975, C1)
• June, 1975: Justice Department asks Atomic Safety and Licensing Board to say whether criminal action should be taken against VEPCO because of "material false statements" the utility allegedly made concerning the geologic fault underlying North Anna. (no byline, "Vepco Criminal Action Is Left to Atomic Unit,"  June 21, 1975, B7)
• June, 1975:  NRC informs Justice Department that it has found no evidence of criminal intent on the part of VEPCO executives responsible for material false statements about the geological fault beneath North Anna ("No Criminal Intent Seen in Vepco Reply," June 24, 1975, C3)
• September 11, 1975:  The $60,000 penalties levied against VEPCO for North Anna are the "strongest ever imposed on the industry" ("Vepco Fined $60,000 for A-Plant Fault, Hal Willard, September 12, 1975,  A1)
• January, 1976: According to new findings by NRC staff, the $60,000 fine levied the previous September against VEPCO by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, should be raised to $90,000("Vepco's Fine Said Too Low, William H. Jones, January 25, 1976, B1)
• January 1976: Justice Department investigates  VEPCO's alleged material false statements in the early 1970s ("North Anna Statements Are Probed," January 30, 1976, C7)
• June, 1976:  NRC stays an appeals board ruling that reduced a record $60,000 fine against VEPCO for making "material false statements" about a geologic fault beneath North Anna. ("Nuclear Unit Alters Vepco Fine," Hal Willard, June 5, 1976, D5)
• November 12, 1976: The NRC fines VEPCO $32,500 for making seven "material false statements" about the presence of a geologic fault beneath North Anna. ("Nuclear Agency Fines Vepco," Hal Willard,  November 13, 1976, D4)
• February 23,1977: VEPCO pays $31,900 fine imposed by NRC for 30 violations discovered in an investigation of construction practices at North Anna. ("Vepco Pays $31,900 Fine For A-Faults," Hal Willard,  February 24, 1977, B4)
• September 30, 1977:  Justice Department says high-level NRC officials covered up for almost three months knowledge that a geologic fault existed under North Anna"U.S. Cover-Up Seen on Fault At Vepco Site," Joanne Omang, October 1, 1977, A1)
• October 3, 1977, It is disclosed that NRC reprimanded its staff last November for covering up knowledge of the geological fault underneath North Anna, but only in a footnote in its ruling.("Nuclear Agency Staff Criticized in Footnote," Joanne Omang, October 4, 1977, C4)
• October 6, 1977: Federal Energy Administration chief John O'Leary dismissed categorically any implication that he or NRC were involved in concealing the existence of a geological fault under North Anna in 1973. ("O'Leary Denies Concealing Fault," Joanne Omang,  October 7, 1977, B2)
• February 1978: VEPCO, saying costs are rising faster than revenues, requests a 12.2 percent rate increase plus another 8 percent later in the year."Vepco Asks Rate Rise Of 12.2 Pct.,"Thomas Grubisich,  February 16, 1978, A1)
• March 1, 1978:   4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upholds $32,500 fine on VEPCO for making false statements. ("Appeals Court Upholds $32,500 Fine on Vepco," Mar 2, 1978, C6)
• June 1978: NRC investigates why staff gave contradictory dates on when it discovered that North Anna was being built on a geologic fault. ("Nuclear Agency Probes Vepco Plant Date Conflict," Thomas Grubisich,  June 15, 1978, C14)
• September 7, 1978:  A witness charges that workers building North Anna are making up to $20,000 a month in unmonitored personal phone calls on VEPCO company phones. ("Witness Charges Waste at Vepco Plant," Phil McCombs,  September 8, 1978, B1)
• October, 1978:  A thousand gallons of radioactive water accidentally flows out of a pipe on to a basement floor at North Anna, "slightly" contaminating 13 employes and causing a 12-hour  shutdown.(" Radioactive Water Spills At Va. Plant," Phil McCombs, October 28, 1978, C1)
• March 1979:  In the wake of Three Mile Island Disaster, the Louisa County Board of Supervisors looks into construction of fallout shelters for county residents due to the location there of North Anna. ("Fallout Shelters Eyed For Residents in Louisa,"  March 22, 1979, C3)
• May 1, 1979:  Critics talk about North Anna in wake of Three Mile Island ("Nuclear Critics Decry Vepco Safety Conditions, Karlyn Barker, May 1, 1979,C1)
• September 25, 1979: A  series of malfunctions triggered a shutdown of  North Anna and a "small amount" of radio active gas is released. ("Radioactive Gas Emitted By Va. Plant: Malfunctions Shut Vepco North Anna Nuclear Facility Plant Emits Radioactive Gas," Stephen J. Lynton and Thomas Grubisich,  September 26, 1979, C1)
• April 10, 1980:  NRC votes to let VEPCO begin trial operations of its second nuclear unit at North Anna.("NRC Lets Vepco Start Trial of 2nd North Anna Unit," Stephen J. Lynton,  Apr 11, 1980, A1)

See also one article in The New York Times

• October,  1977: The Justice Department charges that high-ranking officials at the NRC covered up information the geological fault under North Anna. ("U.S. Panel Accused Of Secrecy on Fault Under Nuclear Unit," David Burnham, October 2, 1977)

UPDATES:

Peter Galuszka (email, bio) has a great piece for September 2 in Bacon's Rebellion, "The Ghost of June Allen."
Tammy Purcell, correspondent for The Fluvanna Review had a detailed piece including history of the opposition on October 26, 2011, "Shake up: Quake sparks concerns over North Anna’s past and future."

The Earthquake and North Anna

Illustration adapted from Google Maps.  


Author's note: the date stamp reflects when I first posted this piece, it is being  updated as other sources of information become available.

I already knew that nuclear power presented problems with waste disposal and potential terrorism. Now I know about earthquakes.

Some pundits on the right used the quake as an opportunity to take a dig at a vacationing Obama or Paul Krugman, for his alleged statement on quakes being an economic stimulus on a faked google+ page. Some on the the left, such as Media Matters and Washington Monthly  took it as an opportunity to take a dig at the right.

I'm more concerned, though, with what Victor Gilinsky, an NRC commissioner at the time of Three Mile Island told Reuters,

It is important to review the seismic design of the plant in terms of current knowledge... "Instead, the NRC has been relicensing plants without any real safety review - they do not question any of the original licensing conditions, they only check to see whether the plant has a program to deal with old equipment. It's an irresponsible approach.

37.936°N, 77.933°W.  That's Tuesday's 5.8  earthquake epicenter and only  eleven miles as the crow flies,  from Dominion Energy's North Anna nuclear plant in Virginia.

The Nuclear Regulatory Agency (NRC) tells us Dominion's reactors lost external power and had to switch to four diesel generators.  According to Bloomberg, the NRC's David McIntyre one of those four diesel generators stopped working after startup.  Chris Gadomski, a nuclear analyst for Bloomberg explained why that's problematic:

If we lose the backup diesel generators at North Anna, you can have a similar situation as Fukushima developing there. Virginia Power should try to restore offsite power as soon as possible.

Just this spring, in the wake of the Fukushima disaster, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) had rated North Anna as the seventh most vulnerable plant. in the U.S., based on plant design and probability of earthquakes. Virginia's central seismic zone, where Tuesday's quake occurred, is one of the areas in the state where quakes are more common.

After the  quake, former Department of Energy official Bob Alvarez told the watchdog group POGO, 

The spent fuel pools at North Anna contain 4-5 times more than their original designs intended. As in Japan, all U.S. power nuclear power plant spent fuel pools do not have steel lined, concrete barriers that cover reactor vessels to prevent the escape of radioactivity. They are not required to have back-up generators to keep used fuel rods cool, if offsite power is lost. Even though they contain these very large amount of radioactivity, spent reactor fuel pools in the U.S. are mostly contained in ordinary industrial structures designed to protect them against the elements.

Alvarez's complete blog post is here.  In it he discusses a concern beyond core damage, presented by earthquakes:  what would happen to the water-filled pools used to store spent fuel at most U.S. nuclear plants.

On April 25,Reed Williams (email) at the Richmond Times-Dispatch reported 

Tuesday's earthquake apparently shook small protective devices at the North Anna Power Station enough to shut down the plant's two nuclear reactors....Dominion Virginia Power would not say exactly when it expects the reactors — representing nearly 13 percent of the state's electric generating capacity — will start producing power again, but it will likely take days....

Data journalist David Kroodsma (email) put together interactive maps of earthquake risks to U.S. nuclear power plants.  I've asked him for specifics on North Anna after the August 23 quake.  He wrote back that he's on vacation, but I hope to get some answers upon his return to work.

In Blacksburg, Virginia  Tech  evacuated the library because the sixth floor was shaking. On the second floor, where I was sitting,  the floor merely  jiggled, as if the person in the next computer carrel was rocking in his chair. According to the University's Department of Geosciences, a magnitude 5.5 eastern U.S. earthquake usually can be felt as far away as 300 miles and sometimes causes damage as far away as 25 mi.  The Department has a page dedicated to the August 23 quake here.

With dense surface rock and and an origin only 3.7 miles deep, Callan Bentley of Northern Virginia Community College and Alexis Madrigal over at The Atlantic explain why  the Virginia quake spread to 22 states and Washington, D.C.  In Washington, three pinnacles on the National Cathedral crumbled, the Washington Monument cracked  and National Mall monuments closed. NBC's Jim MiklaszewskiI says that he, like many other people in the Pentagon,  thought they'd been hit again, as they had been on 9-11.  In New York City, the police ordered the evacuation of City Hall.

Dominion spokesman Jim Norvelle said the plant was designed to withstand an earthquake of this size. But Edwin Lyman of the Union of Concerned Scientists told Reuters,

It was uncomfortably close to design basis...If Fukushima wasn't a wake-up call, this really needs to be to get the NRC and industry moving to do seismic reviews of all the nuclear power plants in the country.

As recently as August 1, his group had questioned why the NRC wasn't implementing its own task force recommendations on safety:

If the Commissioners delay action on the grounds that they do not yet have enough information about what happened at Fukushima to move forward with the recommendations, then it means the NRC also does not have enough information to move forward with relicensing existing reactors or licensing new reactors. In this case, the NRC should institute a moratorium on such business dealings until enough information about Fukushima is available to move ahead on both safety and business issues

It's not like problems at North Anna are new, As Sue Sturgis at the Institute for Southern Studies Studies pointed out :

The risks of a quake at North Anna were known as far back as 1970. In 1975, then-owner Vepco was fined $60,000 -- the maximum allowed by law -- for building the plant over a known geologic fault, the Washington Post reported at the time. Vepco was convicted of making 12 false statements to the NRC about the fault's existence.

So, despite the assurances from the utility and its supposed regulators, I'll continue to wonder about the wisdom of our nuclear renaissance, especially in the wake of Fukushima.  Despite the campaign by the purveyors of nuclear power and fossil fuels, there are better ways to meet our needs for electricity.

*

More earthquake coverage: 

East Coast earthquake: How does a 5.9 temblor happen in Virginia?: Fault lines in the East are not as apparent or as active as in the West, but certain stresses can lead to a rupture. Tuesday's East Coast Earthquake was the biggest in 100 years.

Judge to Dominion: You Can't Make Up Your Own Mercury Standards

Photo of Cale Jaffe (email, bio) who won a decision today over Dominion Resources, Inc.

Today, as even miners were protesting in WV about the sham that is the Department of Environmental Protection, activists against coal-fired electric plants learned of a victory in Virginia reversing a permit issued by the Virginia Air Board. After the Board's decision, Dominion officially broke ground near St. Paul, although a route of appeal existed which led to a lock down last June outside Dominion Resources offices in Richmond.

Judge Spencer issues her order overruling exception to mercury standards

In an order issued August 10 and released August 11, Richmond Circuit Court Judge Margaret Poles Spencer (bio) invalidated an "escape hatch" which would have permitted Dominion Resources to release mercury at its proposed coal-fired plant in Wise County at levels which violated Federal law.

The State Air Pollution Control Board MACT permit (Maximum Achievable Control Technology) set a mercury limit but added a condition 33 that if Dominion

reasonably demonstrates using operational and other related information collected for a period not shorter than the first 12 months of operation of all the equipment used to control mercury ... that the [set limits] are not achievable on a consistent basis under reasonably foreseeable conditions, then testing and evaluation shall be conducted to determine an appropriate adjusted maximum achievable annual emission limit ...

What the plaintiff's argued

Today's decision reflects the pleadings July 31, where Southern Environmental Law Center attorneys, argued on behalf of a coalition of environmental groups (petition filed August 22, 2008) that the exception meant that the permit authorized emission limitations to be set after completion of construction, and a relaxation of emission limitations "beyond what has been achieved in practice by the best controlled similar source."

Judge Spencer was pretty succinct:

The Court agrees.

She explained,

The Clean Air Act requires the MACT determination prior to construction of VCEC. 42 U.S.C. §74 12(g)(2)(B), CAA § I 12(g)(2)(B). The law does not allow "an after-the-fact analysis" of the emission limitation. See United States v. Ohio Edison Co ., 276 f.. Supp.2d 829, 864-865 (S.D. Ohio 2003). The establishment of a flexible "limitation" with an ongoing analysis, in Condition 33, is not a limitation determination prior to construction of a facility, as required by law. The Clean Air Act also requires that the mercury emission limit "not be less stringent than the emission control that is achieved in practice by the best controlled similar source." 42 U.S.C. §7412(d)(3), CAA §112(d)(3). This "best controlled similar source" mandate would be negated if Dominion demonstrates it could not achieve the mercury emission limit in the permit. This result, authorized by Condition 33, therefore violates the CAA. See Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition v. EPA, 255 F.3d 855. 86l-62 (D.C. Cir. 2001) and Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal Authority v. EPA, 358 F.3d 936, 955 (D.C. Cir. 2004). Moreover. Condition 33 states that determination of an "appropriate adjusted maximum achievable annual emission limit" will be based, at least in part, on what is "achievable on a consistent basis under reasonable foreseeable conditions" by Dominion. The law requires the mercury emission limit "not be less stringent than the emission control that is achieved in practice by the best controlled similar source" regardless of the permittee's ability to achieve the set limit. Indeed, the limit must be set "irrespective of cost or achievability." Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition, 255 f .3d at 857-58 ; See Nc.Md. Waste Disposal Auth. v. EPA, 358 F.3d l936, 955 (D.C. Cir. 2004).

What Dominion claimed

Dominion tried to argue that Condition 33 stated a procedure, available under state law, for requesting an amendment of the MACT permit.

Judge Spencer wasn't buying that argument:

to the extent it states an existing post-construction procedure, it is at best, unnecessary. and at worst, violative of the Jaws addressing pre-construction mandates.

She also found that Condition 33 violated precedent in two other cases. It

has '"direct and appreciable legal consequences ." Golden and Zimmerman. L.LC v. Domenech 599 F. Supp. 2d 702, 71 0 (E.D. Va. 2009). It negates the requirement of all absolute MACT limit prior to construction. As noted above. Condition 33 allows a flexible "limitation" during the first 12 months of operation in that the permittee (Dominion) is allowed to demonstrate it cannot achieve the set limit. See Sierra Club v. EPA, 479 F.3d 875, 880 (D.C. Cir. 2007).

Environmental Groups Split on Kaine's SCC Appointment of Dominion Attorney Dimitri

Photo of James C. Dimitri from his listing on the webpage of his law firm McGuire Woods.

*

August 15, Governor Tim Kaine announced his interim appointment as State Corporation Commissioner of James C. Dimitri, who as a partner at the McGuire Woods law firm served as Dominion co-counsel for applications for the Frederick to Loudoun County transmission line in Northern Virginia and the Wise County coal plant.

Evidentally, key Wise County coal plant opponents think Dimitri is okay. The AP states that Cale Jaffe, senior attorney for the Southern Environmental Law Center, noted that Dimitri represented

a wide array of constituencies...He is widely respected among all stakeholders for his intelligence, expertise, and fair-mindedness.

The Washington Post adds that Chesapeake Climate Action Network supports Dimitri, as does the Virginia chapter of the Sierra Club, whose chairman Charles Price wrote,

Mr. Dimitri is widely respected among environmental organizations and other stakeholders committed to reducing greenhouse gas pollution and making smart investments in energy efficiency.

On the other hand, transmission line opponents criticized the appointment, including the Piedmont Environmental Council and Rep. Frank R. Wolf (R-VA.), who said August 18 that he was

shocked and angered...It's a conflict of interest, and [his name] ought to be withdrawn. . . . Couldn't they find an objective person?

Dimitri, 57, was a SCC staff attorney from 1994 to 2000. Before that, he represented industry for the Christian & Barton law firm and consumers and ratepayers, first as a staff attorney at the Virginia Poverty Law Center and later as assistant attorney general 1983 to 1987.

The Richmond Times Dispatch reports that the General Assembly's failure to agree on a candidate afforded Kaine the opportunity for Dimitri's appointment which will go before the General Assembly session next January, for consideration for a full six-year term.

Dimitri, 57, was an earlier prospect for the corporation commission, but Republicans balked because...[t]he Somerville, N.J., native donated more than $5,000 to Kaine's gubernatorial campaign and inaugural committee.

According to the Virginia Public Access Project Dimitri gave $375 on 12/27/2005 for the inaugeration and $120 on 10/07/2001 for Kaine's Lt. Governor campaign. His contributions to Kaine for Governor were (cash, unless otherwise indicated):

• $1,000--10/13/2005
• $ 250--08/29/2005
  
• $ 281 --05/31/2005 (In-Kind: Event Expenses)
• $1,000--05/09/2005
  
• $1,000--01/11/2005
  
• $ 300--06/24/2004 (In-Kind: Fundraiser Expenses)
• $ 500--06/16/2004
• $ 500--03/17/2003

Dimitri also gave $1,111 during the period 2005 - 8 to his law firm's political committee, which in turn disbursed $550,723 to Republicans and Democrats alike.

Richmond Police Descend on Blue Ridge Earth First! and Mountain Justice Activists Protesting Dominion Energy

Photo by Blue Ridge Earth First! For more, see coverage on Flickr. For more information, contact Hannah Morgan at 434-960-2080 or Hilary Lufkin at 804-357-4826.

Twenty non-violent activists were protesting Dominion Energy's promotion of new coal and nuclear facilities as solutions to climate change this morning when Richmond police swept in at 7:30 am to roust them. Five Blue Ridge Earth First! (BREF!) members had formed a human chain to blockade the entrance to Dominion's corporate headquarters on Tredegar Street in downtown Richmond at 7:00 am. Police also arrested seven other BREF and Mountain Justice (MJ) members at the site, all of whom were holding signs and banners and had intended to disband when the police arrived but were given no chance to do.

The protesters said the proposed $1.8 billion Wise County plant would emit too much mercury and carbon dioxide into the air, promote strip mining for coal in Southwest Virginia and cost consumers too much for electricity. The also oppose Dominion’s announced plans to consider an additional nuclear reactor at its North Anna plant in Louisa County.

Michael Martz of the Richmond Times Dispatch reported that the protest blocked traffic on Tredegar Street for "more than two hours" while Dominion employees were forced to walk to work. He reports that company spokesman Karl Neddenien said,

Dominion respects peaceful protest....However, we do not condone illegal activities, such as the blocking of the road and preventing our employees from getting to work.

The twelve have each have been charged with two class-two misdemeanors of impeding police and blocking access by emergency vehicles, as well as a traffic charge. Magistrates have set bail set at $2,000 each and BREF has asked that donations for the bail and legal defense be made through Paypal to Drumplaya112@yahoo.com or sent to BREF! care of Hannah Morgan, 1226 Stonegate Way Crozet, Virginia 22932.

Bethany Spitzer and Alyssa Barrett each had one hand locked into a weighted 55-gallon oil drum reading "We Won't Stop Until You Do." They were linked to Kaitlyn Hart and Holly Garrett, who each had a hand encased into two-and-a-half gallon bucket of hardened cement. Meanwhile, Marley Green served a counterweight to the oil drum, as he hung suspended from the Bell Isle Footbridge above the road. Other, as yet unnamed individuals, held banners that said "No New Coal Plant in Wise County" and "It's Up to Us Virginia. No Nukes. No New Coal. Renewables Now! No Dominion Over Our Democracy,"

Green explained, "Accelerating the rate of mountaintop removal mining to supply the citizens of Virginia with dirty energy is an irresponsible use of the most valuable resources of this Commonwealth. The impact of uranium mining, radioactive waste disposal, and nuclear plant operations on communities across the Southeast are unacceptable trade-offs for the continuation of business as usual energy policy. Dominion should further conservation and efficiency measures and develop solar, wind, and other renewable sources of power in order to do justice to the land and the people of Virginia."

"We’ve been through the regulatory process — it’s time to take action on our own," added Hannah Morgan, a 19-year-old resident of the town of Appalachia in Wise County, Virginia, who acted as spokeswoman for the protest.

Morgan was referring to the June 25, 2008 decision by the Citizen's Air Board to grant final permits for Dominion's proposed new 585 MW coal-fired electric plant in Wise County Virginia, which you can find reported on by Chesapeake Climate Action's Susanna Murley, as well as by the Richmond Times Dispatch's Rex Bowman. (NewsTrust reviews of the latter, here.)

While the Air Board reduced the permitted emissions from those Dominion requested, it declined to address the acceleration of mountaintop removal coal mining, increased carbon dioxide emissions and other issues raised by over a hundred Virginians at a June 24 public hearing at Wise County High School.

The Virginia permit bucked a trend in other states including Florida, Kansas and Texas, which have recently canceled plans for new coal plants. Dominion plans to begin construction this week. BREF! and MJS plan continued protests until Dominion agrees to cancel construction of its proposed Wise County coal plant, to stop burning burning coal mined through mountaintop removal in its existing coal plants and to build no new nuclear facilities.

Already, strip mining and mountaintop removal mining (MTR) have permanently demolished over 25% of Wise County's land mass to get to the coal, rather than using other methods which would preserve the mountains. MTR dumps the rubble from the blasted mountains and to date buried over 1,200 miles of headwater streams across Appalachia.

Dominion's website features a page, Myths and Facts, telling its side of the story and a contact form where you can ask for more information. The Wise Energy for Virginia Campaign (a partnership of Appalachian Voices, Chesapeake Climate Action Network, Sierra Club, Southern Appalachian Mountain Stewards, and Southern Environmental Law Center) has published its own list of 7 myths about Dominion's Wise County plant, six of which still apply after last week's permits, according to Tom Owens. You'll find them below.

*

MYTH #1: The Wise County Coal Plant will be a “Hybrid Energy Center.”

FACT: When first proposed, the plant was named the Southwest Virginia Power Station. Dominion’s marketing executives renamed the project the Virginia City Hybrid Energy Center. But this is no Toyota Prius. Its deplorable environmental performance, outrageous cost, and massive global warming impact would make it the Hummer of coal-burning power plants. The State Corporation Commission (SCC) has determined that under Virginia law it is a “conventional coal” plant.¹

MYTH #2: The Wise County Coal Plant will be carbon-capture compatible.

FACT: During proceedings before the SCC, Dominion executives were asked if there were any specific technologies the company had invested in to capture global warming pollution. Dominion conceded, “We have taken a look at, in a general way, [technologies] for carbon capture. But, no, there is nothing specific we have decided on this facility.”²

Not surprisingly, in granting Dominion a certificate to build the plant, the SCC rejected Dominion’s request for a financial bonus for carbon-capture compatibility. Rather, the SCC was explicitly clear – of the $1.8 billion approved to build the plant, not one penny is earmarked to address the plant’s global warming pollution, either now or at any time in the future.³

MYTH #3: The Wise County Coal Plant will be “state-of-the-art.”

FACT: Dominion is far behind the curve in addressing global warming. According to a report by MIT,⁴ only the most efficient coal plants (known as supercritical plants) will be ready to capture carbon. The proposed Wise County coal plant is not one of those – it would be an inefficient, subcritical coal plant. Dominion has no plan to capture the 5.4 million tons of heat-trapping carbon dioxide the plant would emit every year.

Meanwhile, other electric utilities – even those heavily relying on coal – are working on technologies to capture carbon. AEP plans commercial operation of carbon capture equipment by 2012⁵ (the same year Dominion wants to bring this conventional coal plant into service).

MYTH #4: The Wise County Coal Plant will clean up Southwest Virginia’s “gob” piles.

FACT: “Garbage of Bituminous,” or “gob” is the toxic waste coal left behind by the coal mining industry. Dominion has made no commitment to clean up “gob.” Instead, the fuel for the plant would likely be newly mined coal.⁶ As a result, the Dominion plant would only encourage mountaintop removal coal mining and other devastating practices. Where traditional mining practices cut mine shafts to access coal seams, mountaintop removal coal mining levels entire mountains and buries miles of streams in rubble. It literally obliterates the natural landscape.

MYTH #5: The Wise County Coal Plant Will Boost The Economy.

FACT: While the coal plant would have 75 permanent employees,⁷ the hundreds of jobs Dominion promises would only be temporary construction jobs that would disappear once the plant is built. At the same time, the coal plant would accelerate mountaintop removal coal mining, a process that has done far more economic harm than good. Since 1980, Wise County has experienced a 28% decline in the average income and a 53.1% decline in mining jobs -- despite an increase in coal production during the same timeframe.⁸

Mountain top removal coal mining also hurts the tourism industry in Wise County, which generates more than $32 million a year in expenditures, payroll, and state and local taxes. The Crooked Trail, Virginia’s Heritage Music Trail, draws more than 60,000 visitors to Appalachia and Southwestern Virginia each year.⁹ The USA Today reports, “From Dickenson County to Galax, rural areas that offer winding trails, bluegrass music and wine tastings have become some of the state's fastest-growing attractions.”¹⁰ And more than 35,000 acres of the pristine Jefferson National Forest lie within Wise County, providing a “multitude of outdoor recreational opportunities: hiking, biking, swimming, canoeing, hunting, fishing, camping, boating ….”¹¹

MYTH #6: Electricity Rates For Dominion Customers Will Only Increase “Nominally.”¹²

FACT: The State Corporation Commission’s staff determined that rates would increase so much as to have a net negative impact on the Virginia economy, with a loss of 1,474 jobs.¹³ As “electricity rates increase,” the staff explained, consumers would have “less income to spend on other goods and services.” Less consumer spending hurts the economy, particularly small businesses. Dominion’s construction costs have increased $200 million since the SCC analysis was done, meaning even higher electricity rates and more job loss.

1 The Final Order from the State Corporation Commission states: “We find that this coal-fired facility qualifies, at a minimum, as a ‘conventional coal’ facility under § 56-585.1 .A.6 of the Code. …Accordingly, the Coal Plant shall receive an enhanced return of 100 basis points as prescribed for a ‘conventional coal’ plant by § 56-585.1 .A.6 of the Code.”

2 Cross-Examination of James K. Martin, Dominion Vice President for Fossil & Hydro Technical Services, before the State Corporation Commission, (Feb. 6, 2008).

3 The Final Order from the State Corporation Commission states:

We find that the construction costs projected by the Company to be incurred in connection with the proposed Coal Plant are reasonable and prudent at Virginia Power’s currently projected level of $1.8 billion. …

[W]e do not find that it is reasonable or prudent for the Company to incur any amount of costs above the cost estimates that comprise the projected level of $1.8 billion. We cannot approve in essence a blank check for Virginia Power to build the Coal Plant at any cost …

The finding of reasonableness and prudence herein does not extend to any costs associated with retrofitting, or other modifications to, the Coal Plant to make it carbon capture compatible. Accordingly, our approval herein is subject to the requirement that there shall be no recovery of any costs associated with future retrofitting, or other future modifications to, the Coal Plant to make it carboncapture compatible….

4 MIT, The Future of Coal, at pages 19, Table 3.1., 36, Table 3.7, and 96.

5 See Bruce Baine, AEP Vice President, “AEP and Climate Legislation,” (10/9/07).

6 Combustion calculations performed for Dominion by its contractor, Shaw, Stone & Webster, evaluate performance as if the plant would burn, alternatively: 100% Central Appalachian Coal; 100% run-of-mine coal; 60% Moss #3 waste coal and 40% Central Appalachian coal; and, finally, 83% run-of-mine coal and 17% wood and waste coal. These calculations were submitted as part of Dominion’s application for a federal Clean Air Act (Prevention of Significant Deterioration) permit to the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality.

7 According to the testimony of Dominion’s Senior Vice President, E. Paul Hilton, “construction of the Plant will create at least 800 new jobs” while actual “operation of the Plant” will employ only “75 plant operators.”

8 Data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration.

9 Dionne Walker, “Rural Virginia tourism: Small, But Growing Fast,” USA Today, 5/25/05. You can learn about Virginia’s Music Heritage Trail, the Carter Family, Ralph Stanley, and much more at www.thecrookedroad.org

10 Dionne Walker, op. cit.

11 Wise County Chamber of Commerce, Tourism Information.

12 Tim Craig and Sandhya Somashekhar, “Dominion Gets Initial Approval For Coal Plant,” Washington Post, 4/1/08, p. B2: “Company officials say there might be ‘nominal’ increases in residents’ utility bills starting next year to offset the cost of construction of the plant.”)

13 Testimony of Mark K. Carsley, Division of Economics and Finance, State Corporation Commission.

NRC approves more nuke plants for Virginia

Photo of Lois Gibbs of Love Canal fame who spoke against the new nuke plants near Louisa, Virginia when she was in Charlottesville.

With over 200 miles of shoreline and some 13,000 surface acres of water, Lake Anna is a recreational centerpiece that maintains a rural charm. As Virginia's second largest lake, it has become a premier choice for water lovers. Here, you can enjoy water sports of your choice - power boating, sailing, water skiing, wake boarding, jet skiing and certainly swimming. One of the most common reasons water enthusiasts love Lake Anna is because of its clean water. If you're an angler, you'll find that Lake Anna is a proven year-round fishery. One of the best lakes to fish for lunker largemouth bass on the eastern seaboard, Lake Anna is also known for its hard charging stripers and fine eating crappies. Catfish, bream and walleyes are also on the lake's menu.

--Lake Anna Business Partnership

Sounds idyllic. Besides the marinas and restaurants, there are homes strung out along the shores of the lovely lake near Louisa, VA. What a great place to build two additional nuke plants. (There are already two.) But this is exactly what Dominion Energy applied for on September 25, 2003 .

I happened to be in Charlotesville in March 25, 2005 for the Virginia Festival of the Book when the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League (BREDL) brought down Lois Gibbs to explain why the North Anna application was a bad idea. Health hazards, adverse environmental impacts, nuclear waste uncertainties. She sure convinced me.

For details, read BREDL's report, issued in June of 2004. Read the August 2, 2007, BREDL comments filed with the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, citing concerns about the water temperature of the discharge.

But, today, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) ignored all this and authorized an Early Site Permit (ESP) to Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC for the site. The NRC staff has 10 business days to issue the permit, valid for up to 20 years. This is the third permit approved. The NRC granted one for the Clinton site in Illinois on March 15, and for the Grand Gulf site in Mississippi on April 5. A fourth ESP is being processed for the Vogtle site in Georgia.

The NRC published a final safety evaluation for the North Anna ESP in August 2006, a final environmental impact statement in December 2006, and then the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) conducted a hearing on June 29, 2007, ruling that the permit could be issued. See: http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-licensing/esp/north-anna.html. Those in Louisa County can view the documents at the library, 881 Davis Highway in Mineral, VA.

Supposedly, safety and environmental issues have been resolved and the site is suitable for construction and operation of a nuclear plant. The company (or any other potential applicant interested in the site) still must seek NRC approval to build one or more nuclear plants on the site. But what are the chances of refusal?

Is any site suitable? Especially one this close to the Nation's and the State capitals. How can the Bush administration harp on the need for Homeland Security and at the same time go full speed ahead, building new nuclear plants? Wouldn't wind, solar, geothermal, etc. be a better idea? Think of the opportunity costs of continuing to shovel money at nukes, oil and coal, just because they are entrenched and have so much influence.