White Stallion Re-visited

Dear Editor:

The energy industry has been in center stage, albeit a very negative stage, for the past six weeks or so, first with the BP catastrophe in the Gulf and then with EPA objections to the TCEQ air permitting process for refineries, chemical plants and other facilities. It is no wonder that our mail boxes contained a glossy flyer highlighting the benefits and minimal risks of the White Stallion coal and pet coke fired power plant and that Mr. Randy Bird and minions pronounced the benefits of the proposed plant at Bay City High School last Tuesday evening while, in reality, underplaying the risks of the plant to the population and environment.

The Tuesday evening session once again reminded those in attendance of what we have heard before: economic growth and jobs for the county, tax revenues, low cost energy for Texas, and environmental soundness and safety. The presentation was similar to previous briefings with little new information. Specifics were notably lacking since White Stallion still exists on paper (“still in the design process”) while the permitting process is still under way. Of more relevance, no consideration was given to questions raised by local residents in the local media over the past few months about the influence of the plant on the health of the population and environment!

Several highlights of comments offered by Mr. Bird, his minions and/or the media presentation were as follows:

1. The number of permanent jobs at the proposed plant has now increased from 150 (Advocate, 13 May 2010) to 200 with an average annual salary of $70,000, but whether or not jobs will go to local residents is not clear. White Stallion will hire locally “as much as we can” but construction jobs and presumably permanent jobs depend on “skill sets in the local community.” Not mentioned was potential job losses associated with reduction in tourism, fishing, agriculture, and perhaps others.

2. Tax revenues for the school district, county government and hospital were noted, but there was no direct mention of tax abatements – a delay in paying taxes over a short or long term in order to attract jobs and investment.

3. The high cost of electricity in Texas was attributed to high natural gas prices and White Stallion would “help keep out electric bills from skyrocketing.” No specifics were given as to how this will be done and no mention was made how White Stallion will lower the prices in our county. Mr. Bird did indicate that costs will not be lower than rural rates and that White Stallion must negotiate for the retail sale of the power generated.
   
   

4. White Stallion opted to use coal and pet coke (described as an “opportunity fuel” depending on price) and dismissed use of natural gas due to its high cost. Yet, natural gas is the cleanest burning fossil fuel available to meet energy demands and reducing carbon emissions. Clearly, White Stallion is driven by profit at the expense of Matagorda County.

5. White Stallion would not harm the health and safety of people, crops and the environment, and would not have adverse health effects. No data were presented to back up the claims. Mr. Bird has apparently not read the report of Physicians for Social Responsibility - COAL’S ASSAULT ON HUMAN HEALTH (November 2009, www.psr.org/coalreport) which concludes with the recommendation that “There should be no new construction of coal-fired power plants…” (p. xii). Mr. Bird referred to “state of the art” technology on a regular basis. This must be the “cure all” that handles human and environmental health-related issues. “State of the art technology” must be the new buzz word for BACT – best available control technology. Technology and the people who operate it fail – as is all too evident in the BP oil spill ravaging the Gulf.

6. Problems with coal ash were attributed to old technology; pet coke ash with its unique problems was not mentioned. Circulating fluidized bed (CFB) boilers were hailed as the cure for the problem. No mention was made of observations that “…the volume of ashes, both bottom ash and fly ash, discharged from a CFB boiler is much higher than the ashes discharged from a pulverized coal-fired boiler at the same capacity of the boiler” (Journal of Energy Resources Technology,2006, 128, p 311).

The overall impression of the evening was blind faith in technology, “state of the art,” “best available control technology.” Blind faith in technology obviously failed in the Gulf! Economics is the driving force for White Stallion – profits and greed. This sounds like the “best economic case” for BP whose technology “…carried risks beyond potential gas leaks” (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/27/us/27rig.html). The technology obviously needed more work that would have delayed the rush for oil - profit.

When asked about financial assurance for potential clean-up should an accident happen or should a major flood hit the coal, pet coke and ash storage, Mr. Bird did “…not know what to say.” In fact, the effect of a potential flood on stored coal and pet coke ash was dismissed! This attitude reinforces a common notion that “…private businesses cannot be trusted to exercise sufficient care for the consequences of their risks” (National Catholic Reporter, 11 June 2010, p. 28).

The silence of Mr. Bird was staggering in response to questions from concerned parents with a child who had lead poisoning. Neither Mr. Bird nor his staff could give specifics on lead and mercury emissions – let alone others such as arsenic, nickel, vanadium and molybdenum associated with burning pet coke; instead they referred to (hid behind) TCEQ guidelines. Why not face the facts –when it comes to the health of children there are no safe levels of lead or mercury! After expressing that he “understands” and is “concerned,” Mr. Bird offered the caveat that everything has some amount of toxicity in it and that White Stallion “will not do anything to hurt anybody” which of course sounds all too familiar. It was very surprising that the so-called expert staff of White Stallion did not have specific details with them, i.e., actual numbers, but that they would be “happy to provide the modeling results!” This is the crux of the issue. White Stallion and TCEQ abide by an acceptable level of ill health associated with power plants, which implies that it is acceptable for emissions to sicken people as long as numbers are below a certain level! This is why TCEQ is having difficulties with the EPA regarding air pollution in the state. Hopefully, the EPA will extend its control to coal fired power plants.

Mr. Bird noted the value of importing coal from the Illinois basin, i.e., Kentucky, since it was 400 miles closer than coal imported from Wyoming. He did not talk about his connections with the Kentucky coal industry and connections between Kentucky donors and Texas politicians. For example, 19 individuals or couples (including Randall A and Sharon K Bird) and 24 corporations from Kentucky donated to the Tom Delay defense fund in 2004 (Tom Delay Legal Expense Trust, October 13, 2004, Legislative Resource Center, Office of the Clerk, U.S. House of Representatives, October 22, 2004).

The bottom line is that White Stallion and its leaders do not really have the best interests of our population and environment at heart. It is purely a business venture and we are the victims.

A key player is the Environmental Protection Agency which noted the following on its web site: "EPA’s responsibility is to ensure that the program in Texas complies with the public-health protections provided for all Americans in every other state under (the) nation's Clean Air Act. EPA is taking another important step to address deficiencies in the state’s air operating permit program by proposing an audit program to help companies with Texas flexible permits obtain an air permit that meets the protections of the Clean Air Act" (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/energy/7046456.html). Hopefully, this will be extended to the permitting process for coal and pet coke fired power plants.

What can we do? What should we do? Contact the following persons to demand that White Stallion do a comprehensive Environmental Impact Study:

Dr. Al Armendariz (Regional Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 6, 1445 Ross Ave. Suite 1200, Mail Code: 6RA-D, Dallas, TX 75202-2733, 800 887-6063)

Mr. Steven Walls (US Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch, Box 1229, Galveston, TX 77553-1229, steven.e.walls@usace.army.mil)

Mr. Richard Hyde (Deputy Director, Office of Permitting and Registration, TCEQ, PO Box 13087, Austin, TX 78711-3087, 512 239-5500)

Concerned citizens should let local, state and national officials know that we strongly oppose White Stallion in our county. This is self-advocacy. It is our right and duty, especially for our children and grandchildren.

Robert M. Malina,

Bay City