This a.m. – yet another derailment and explosion in Ontario

March 7th, 2015

Heavy equipment is used in an attempt to extinguish a fire after a crude oil train derailment south of Timmins, OntarioReuters File Photo

As if last month’s Bakken BOOM! derailment wasn’t enough, well, as of around 3 a.m. there was ANOTHER one in Ontario, this one just 37 km from the one a few weeks ago.  Hwy 144 and Hwy 101 are closed.  Local residents are told not to drink water.

From CP24, Toronto: Fire burning after train carrying crude oil derails in northern Ontario

“We have two exits in Gogama to get in and out of town and the bridge apparently is burned down,” Veronneau said. “So now we have one other exit, which is relatively close to where all of this is going on.”

… “My inn is about 200 feet from the train tracks and it’s a major concern for the people in town … If it had happened in the middle of town we wouldn’t be having a conversation right now because we would have gotten taken out. It would have been horrible being this close and the track runs right through the middle of Gogama.”

Gogema2_GoogleMaps

Gogema_GoogleMaps

Reuters: UPDATE 4-Canadian Nat’l crude train derails in Ontario, on fire, leaking

From The Star:

CN train with crude oil derails, catches fire in northern Ontario

And from that article, reporting findings from the Ontario wreck and explosion a couple weeks ago stating that upgrading the rail cars is not enough:

The investigation into the first Gogama derailment is ongoing. In its Feb. 23 progress update, the TSB wrote that the Class 111 tank cars built to the CPC-1232 standard, which had been travelling at the speed of 38 mph (61 km/h) at the time of derailment, “performed similarly to those involved in the Lac-Mégantic accident which occurred at 65 mph (105 km/h).”

“The TSB has warned (Transport Canada) that this standard was not sufficient and that more needed to be done to provide an adequate level of protection,” according to the update.

Washington Post: Train carrying crude oil derails in northern Ontario

RT.com: Huge fire: Train carrying crud oil derails in Canada

CBC Canada: Train carrying crude oil derails near Gogama, Ont.

ErikWhite_CBC_gogama-derailmentPhoto Erik White, CBC

Posted by Carol A. Overland
Filed in Disasters, Energy, Rail
No Comments »

Any comments on draft Silica Sand rules?

March 6th, 2015

alarm-clock-ringingAt the February 11, 2015 meeting of the Silica Sand Advisory Panel, at least two of the agency speakers said they wanted comments on the rule drafts in 30 days or so, and that 30 days is almost up.  BUT, it’s been hard to find those drafts, and it’s even harder to make comments on something not findable!  They are not posted on the Advisory Panel site.

Also, I’ve heard several times that “the legislature will block these new rules” or some such, and I can’t get a read on what exactly is the concern, but the legislature isn’t going to block rulemaking because there’s nothing the legislature can do to block a rulemaking proceeding, it does not require legislative approval.  Now they could change the law, and repeal the rulemaking requirement, but change the law?!?!  That’s highly unlikely “they” could.

The deadline is extended to March 18 via an email from Nathan Cooley, MPCA:

Dear Panel Members and Alternates,
In addition to the reminder of a deadline to provide your input (which Heather asked me to extend from Friday 3/13 to Wednesday 3/18/2015), staff have asked me to forward working copies of preliminary draft working language in MS Word format to improve input convenience:
Thanks!
Sincerely,
 
Nathan Brooks Cooley
Rulemaking Coordinator
651-757-2290 v
651-297-8676 x

Big thanks to Nathan Cooley and Catherine Neuschler of the MPCA for being responsive and coughing up the drafts!  Both PDFs and WORD are below, because track changes may be helpful:

PDF Draft Rules:

DNR Rule (pdf) Draft Silica Sand Reclamation Rule_2015_03_03

MPCA Air Emissions (pdf) 20141125 Draft Silica Sand Emission Rule (3)

MPCA Air Monitoring (pdf) EXHIBIT M

EQB Rule (pdf) Preliminary EQB_Draft Rules_ Definitions__2_19_2015

WORD Draft Rules (for track changes comments):

DNR Rule (docx) Draft Silica Sand Reclamation Rule_2015_03_03

MPCA Air Emissions (docx) 20141125 Draft Silica Sand Emission Rule (3)

MPCA Air Monitoring (docx) EXHIBIT M

EQB Rule (docx) Preliminary EQB_Draft Rules_ Definitions__2_19_2015

Have at it, folks, and get your comments to your Silica Sand Advisory Panel Representatives:

Local government representatives

Citizen representatives

Industry representatives

 

Posted by Carol A. Overland
Filed in Fracking & Frac Sand
No Comments »

Another BNSF Bakken BOOM! near Galena, IL

March 5th, 2015

BakkenBOOM_MikeBurley_Dubuque

BNSF Update (21 cars derailed, 5 burning)

Another BNSF Bakken oil BOOM! train has derailed and blown up.  Evacuations are happening as I type within a 1 mile radius of the wreck.  DOH!  How much more of this will we have to take?

Access will be a problem on this one too, “had to access it by bike trail.”  Great, just great… They couldn’t get to the source of the fire, and had to leave quickly for safety reasons, abandoning over $10k of equipment at the site.  They’re going to “let it burn out.”  Could be a while.  EPA is on way from Chicago, BNSF crews from area.  There’s some good video on the KWQC link way below.   The oil is going down from the railroad grade, burning, and trees down there are on fire too, it’s a wooded area, and could go up in flames.  It’s not directly on the river, but the river isn’t that far away.

Dubuque Telegraph Herald — UPDATE: Evacuations underway as railcars burn near Galena

WQAD: Train carrying oil derails near Galena, Illinois

STrib: BNSF freight train loaded with crude oil derails near Illinois city of Galena, catches fire

Chicago Sun-Times: State agencies mobilize after crude oil train derails near Galena

Posted at Chicago Sun-Times:

GalenaBOOM_B_Xp57jWAAE_0_D

KWQC: Clean-up crews on scene at train derailment site near Galena, Ill.

Visible on the ski slope cameras:  Live slope top cameras located at Chestnut Mountain Ski Resort.  Dark now, but should be visible again tomorrow.

Reuters: BNSF oil train derails in rural Illinois; two cars aflame

KWWL: UPDATE: 8 train cars derail; 2 continue to burn crude oil

Posted by Carol A. Overland
Filed in Disasters, Energy, Fracking & Frac Sand, Rail
No Comments »

Minnesota nuclear plants in the news

March 5th, 2015

BreaktimeThat’s Prairie Island Nuclear Generation Plant behind Kenya…

Two nuclear issues in today’s news, one at Prairie Island and one at Monticello.

Prairie Island in the Beagle:

Prairie Island Unit 2 safely shut down; operators investigating fire alarm

And in the STrib:

Fire alarm prompts unscheduled shutdown of Prairie Island nuclear unit

While there was no indication of a fire, plant personnel are “taking conservative actions” and putting the unit out of service to investigate what happened, a statement from utility said.

One of the Prairie Island nuclear power plant’s two units in Red Wing is being shut down Thursday in response to what Xcel Energy is calling an “unusual event.”

According to the utility, a fire alarm went off overnight in the Unit 2 containment building. While there was no indication of a fire, plant personnel are “taking conservative actions” and putting the unit out of service to investigate what happened, a statement from the Minneapolis-based utility said.

“There is no release of radioactive materials as a result of this event, ” which was declared shortly after 4 a.m., the statement added.

Unit 1 is operating normally, said company spokesman Tom Hoen. The incident has not affected the utility’s ability to generate electricity, Hoen said.

A notification of an “unusual event” is the lowest of four emergency classifications established by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

The notification indicates a potential reduction in the level of safety at the plant but no threat to public safety, the utility explained. Hoen said he was expecting more information about the shutdown later Thursday morning.

In December, Unit 1 was taken out of service to allow workers to replace a reactor coolant pump seal during an outage.

Xcel Energy has one other nuclear power plant in Minnesota, a one-unit facility in Monticello, northwest of the Twin Cities.

Paul Walsh • 612-673-4482

At Monticello, it seems there are recurring security problems, in the St. Cloud Times:

Feds continue stepped-up oversight of Monticello plant

And in the STrib:

Increased federal oversight at Monticello nuclear plant to continue after violation spotted

MONTICELLO, Minn. — Federal regulators will continue increased oversight at Xcel Energy’s Monticello nuclear plant after a security issue was found.

The St. Cloud Times (http://on.sctimes.com/1EQvPjM ) reports issues that led to the problem spotted in the last quarter of 2014 have been resolved. The improvements were found in two recent inspections, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory commission said.

Those improvements mean the commission won’t move the Monticello plant into a category of plants with the most serious performance issues, as the commission said would normally happen without changes.

Details of the violation were not released by the commission, but it called the problem a “greater than green” security finding. Green translates to an issue of very low safety significance and is the lowest rating on the commission’s color-coded scale.

The federal commission stepped up inspections in 2013 after it found that the Monticello plant wasn’t ready for worst-case flooding along the Mississippi River.

Pete Gardner, the plant’s vice president, said the security issue was found by plant workers, who corrected it and notified federal regulators.

The plant is committed to making safety improvements, Gardner said.

And here’s the Forum view of the Senate Environment and Energy Committee hearing on repealing the nuclear moratorium — no mention whatsoever of Dr. Arjun Makhijani:

Nuclear power moratorium debate returns

A state law bans nuclear plant construction.

It is time to give Minnesota utilities the ability to consider a new nuclear plant, said Sen. Mary Kiffmeyer, R-Big Lake, sponsor of a bill to overturn Minnesota’s nuclear power plant moratorium.

“We appreciate the solid base of energy it provides,” she said about nuclear power.

Nuclear plants near Red Wing and Monticello provide a significant amount of Minnesota’s electrical power. Their licenses to operate end in the early 2030s, and if a new plant were to be considered, planning would need to begin soon.

An Xcel official said nuclear power is a good response to increasing rules to limit fossil fuel use.

Randy Evans said Xcel has no plans to build a new plant, “but at the bottom of the issue is we believe it does not make sense to leave any (energy) sources off the table.”

Nuclear opponents said new plants cost too much, builders cannot find adequate financing and they offer too much safety risk.

“Nuclear power plants remain an unacceptable power source,” said Bill Grant of the Minnesota Commerce Department.

Since the last Minnesota nuclear power plant started in 1973 and the last coal plant began producing power in 1987, the state has added wind, natural gas and biomass power, Grant said. Now, he said, the state is well positioned to get electricity from more natural gas plants and Canadian hydroelectric facilities.

The issue returned to the Minnesota Legislature Tuesday for the first time since Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant was seriously damaged by a tsunami created by a major earthquake March 11, 2011. A bill that many thought would pass the Legislature that year ceased progress with the tsunami.

A Senate energy committee heard Kiffmeyer’s bill and one specifically lifting the moratorium on the Monticello plant, but took no action.

Chairman John Marty, D-Roseville, said he doubted that any bill coming out of his committee would overturn the moratorium, but he predicted that there would be attempts to amend an overall energy bill in his committee and the full Senate to strip the ban.

Marty said that he wanted a thorough hearing of the issue since it is bound to come up for more debate and the House appears to lean toward passing an anti-moratorium bill.

The Prairie Island Indian Community, which sits next to the Red Wing-area nuclear plant, sent a statement to Marty’s committee opposing lifting the moratorium.

The Tribal Council’s statement said that the tribe is not opposed to nuclear energy, but any increase in generating capacity or storage of waste nuclear materials “is irresponsible without a long-term national solution for storing spent nuclear fuel.”

The federal government promised 32 years ago to establish a place to store nuclear waste, but that never materialized. So waste is stored in hardened casks near the Prairie Island and Monticello facilities.

George Crocker of the North American Water Office opposes nuclear power, and said that the industry requires huge government oversight.

“There is no industry in the history of humanity that has more need for government than nuclear power,” he said, because of safety and financial reasons.

Nathan Makala of the Heartland Institute in Chicago, however, said that nuclear power is safe and “requires far less land than other sources of green energy such as wind.”

Nuclear supporters said it causes little pollution and can pump millions of dollars into the local economy. It provides “stable and affordable energy,” Makala said.

Posted by Carol A. Overland
Filed in Nuclear
No Comments »

Dinner with Dr. Arjun Makhijani in Red Wing

March 3rd, 2015

ArjunMakhijani

After listening to his testimony today before Minnesota’s Senate Environment and Energy Committee…

Video (weird write up, omitted the most important witness!!!), see 10:06:

*Lifting Moratorium on New Nuclear Power Plants

Arjun Makhijani – Minnesota Senate E and E Committee 03-03-2015

… we got another dose when Dr. Makhijani graced us with his presence at Fiesta Mexicana, with tales of Nuclear Waste Confidence that lit up every burn-up and zircaloy cladding wonk around the tables!  It’s really depressing stuff, so it was better to discuss this dreadful and so unbelievable nuclear situation in a dedicated misery-loves-company group.

In his testimony, he’d brought up the dangers of moving forward with nuclear plans where there is “Construction Work in Progress” for utilities to recoup funds spent on construction long before it is in-service, if ever, as is happening with the Vogtle plant.  So I took a stroll through our statutes, long familiar with our 2005 Construction Work in Progress give-away to Xcel on transmission, and found that, sure enough, it is an option for Minnesota utilities:

Minn. Stat. 216B.16, Subd. 6a. Construction work in progress.

To the extent that construction work in progress is included in the rate base, the commission shall determine in its discretion whether and to what extent the income used in determining the actual return on the public utility property shall include an allowance for funds used during construction, considering the following factors:

(1) the magnitude of the construction work in progress as a percentage of the net investment rate base;

(2) the impact on cash flow and the utility’s capital costs;

(3) the effect on consumer rates;

(4) whether it confers a present benefit upon an identifiable class or classes of customers; and

(5) whether it is of a short-term nature or will be imminently useful in the provision of utility service.

Xcel did finally come out and admitted their support for removal of the nuclear moratorium.  When considered in light of their e21_Initiative_Phase_I_Report_2014, there’s a trajectory that I see, and wish I didn’t: Xcel could build a new nuclear plant on the ratepayers dime and sell it on the market using their new transmission that we’re paying for, making Minnesota an electricity exporter!

Tonight, we discussed the Nuclear Waste Confidence decision, which is a “No-Confidence” decision, the word “confidence” has been removed from NRC lexicon.  Well, there is that other meaning of “confidence” to consider…

So on that happy note, I’ll have mango margaroodie dreams about the Pt. Beach cask explosion and the current task of changing the seals on those 20 year old TN-40 casks!

PtBeach_FS122-Figure-3-pb-cask-02

Posted by Carol A. Overland
Filed in Disasters, Energy, Nuclear
No Comments »
« Previous Entries
Next Entries »