Clearing the air: AES, pollution, and Redondo Beach
Power and pollution
AES is currently drawing up plans for what the company says would be a cleaner, more efficient power plant. Those plans will be submitted for state approval later this month, but AES has already begun marketing its new plant.
In July AES sent out a fact booklet that was mailed to a select number of Redondo Beach residents. It provided renderings of the current plant contrasting to the proposed 12-acre plant, showing a new plant that would be virtually undetectable from many angles. It also said that the five current 219-foot stacks would be replaced with three stacks, each less than 140-feet tall.
On the front cover was a picture of a smiling 20-something woman riding her bike near the waterfront. Opposition group NoPowerPlant, in response to the AES mailer, created their own fact book with a picture of a young child riding her bike down the same trail wearing a gas mask.
AES mailer
AES’ recently released “Project Summary,” explained that the new plant will be permitted to run 76 percent of the time, but is expected to only run 25 to 42 percent of the time. Their numbers indicate that the new plant, although permitted to produce 11,475,600 MWh of electricity, will only produce 770,000 – 1,300,000 MWh per year.
Opponents of repowering, BBR and NoPowerPlant, said that although the new plant will be cleaner and more efficient, it will also run more frequently, adding more pollutants to the air. BBR, extrapolating numbers from another proposed new AES plant in Huntington Beach – plans for which were submitted to the state in July – projects particulate emissions for a new Redondo plant to increase from the 3.3 tons released on average annually from 2007 to 2011 to between 22 and 37 tons.
“AES is going to put out six to eleven times they have over the last five years because they are going to run a lot more often,” Brand said. “Yes, it will be a lot more efficient. But it’s going to run so much more that they are going to put out 37 tons of particulate emissions, per their own numbers.”
Councilman Matt Kilroy sees a flaw in that comparison. Although in the last five years the plant has run at 5 percent capacity, he said the assessment should take more years into account.
In the past five years… the plant produced approximately 452,255 MWh of electricity, the recent AES project summary said. In an Air Quality Management District (AQMD) facility overview from 1999 – 2003, the numbers were much higher. In 1999 the plant’s output was 1,331,158 MWh. In 2003, the output was only slightly lower at 1,035,691 MWh.
“I don’t think it’s fair to sit there and compare what a potentially new power plant would produce to a power plant that by everyone’s admission virtually never ran in the last years,” said Kilroy. “Why are we comparing it against something that was virtually shut down?”
NoPowerPlant mailer
Dennis Peters, a representative from California Independent System Operations (CAISO), which oversees the state’s power grid, explained at a recent city council meeting that the state is trying to strike a balance with fewer gas generated plants while continuing to maintain the reliability of power across California. He said that if all four gas-fired plants in the region that supply the capacity requirement of 10,589 MWh were retired, the region would be 3,207 MWh short of necessary power.
But Peters also noted that all four plants are in the process of modernizing. Brand pounced on the opportunity. He asked Peters if there was the capacity of retiring one “once-through” power plant and still maintaining grid reliability.
“We look at that 3,277 MW needed to be replaced and we’re not specifying where that needs to be,” said Peters. “We would agree…the best, most cost-effective location would be at existing sites.”
“Just to reiterate,” said Brand. “There is capacity to retire some of the once-through cooling capacity.”
“Yes,” Peters answered.
A stony silence filled the room.
Pendergraft maintains, however, that the state’s energy needs remain highly unpredictable. He pointed to the problems experienced this year in San Onofre, where a nuclear power plant serving 1.2 million people went offline due to serious technical difficulties.
“Our world changes fast,” Pendergraft said. “San Onofre may or may not be back in service – this is 2,300 MWh we thought would be there that may not be there. We need to react to our ever-changing world, and that is what we are trying to do.”
“I think there is a point that a lot of people are missing: what we are doing is creating an option to be able to create a plant if needed. But if it’s not, then you have 50 acres available for other uses. And the state will make those assessments….Certainly, our vision is a for a smaller, quieter power plant. But we are only going to build that plant if it is needed.”
Kilroy also said that because of the concerns at San Onofre, the CEC will more hesitant to shut down power generating stations. He also said that if the CEC ultimately decides that the AES plant is needed, there are options to offset the pollution the plant would produce.
“There’s no doubt that having a power plant in your backyard is not a preferable thing, and there’s no doubt if you remove the sources of pollution you’re better off,” said Kilroy. “But if they are allowed to re-power, how can we get AES to reduce other sources of pollution and come out with a zero gain?”
Kilroy suggested that because the City Council voted to be an intervener in the relicensing process, they could suggest different ways for AES to mitigate their local pollution impact.
“We could have them pay to have solar water heaters installed in people’s homes,” he said. “And electric cars are the future, so why not put aside money to pay for an electrical charging infrastructure… plus that’s a boon for them, because they sell electricity. “
“One of my things is regardless of what happens and we end up having a power plant, we have to make the best [of the] result and ask what we can do to mitigate all of its negative impacts.”
Continue to page 3: Up in the air
Up in the air
For Sheri Patterson, a local Redondo Beach mom, any pollution, no matter the amount, it is unacceptable for her family’s health.
“I have two little kids,” said Patterson. “I’m worried about my kids being at school and out playing and the impact that these dangerous pollutants will have on my children’s lungs.”
Edward Avol an Occupational and Environmental Health specialist at USC, and a South Bay resident, has studied the health effects of particulate emissions and knows the health risks for people living near a plant.
“Particulates in the air lead to increased deaths and all sorts of different health effects annually,” said Avol.
Dan Buck stands before the city council to discuss the health impacts of the power plant. Photo
According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), particulate matter, technically known as PM-10 and PM-2.5, are microscopic solids or liquid droplets can be less than 10 micrometers and can settle deep into lungs and the bloodstream and cause an entire host of health problems. They are inhalable and can be found anywhere dust and debris are found. Not only do they cause health problems, they can settle on ground or water and can make lakes acidic, change the nutrient balance in water, deplete nutrients in soil and damage forests and farm crops. According to the AQMD, in Redondo Beach nitrogen oxide and sulfur oxide emissions are the main type of particulate emitted from the power plant’s boilers.
Beach Cities Health District chief medical officer Lisa Santora said that when a person inhales particulates, the body recognizes it as a foreign object and responds with inflammation. “That’s why particulates are known to cause the thickening of arteries and bronchioles”
She also said that our region is not compliant with federal standards of particulate matter. “Which is why particulate matter needs to be controlled, and mitigated.”
Patterson is especially worried about the effects emissions have on children and the elderly. “It’s known to stop lung development,” said Patterson.
PM-10 and its smaller counterpart, PM-2.5, are difficult to track and are often not harmful until the wind has blown it further inland, Kilroy, a science teacher, said. Even with the AES power plant, Redondo Beach’s air is relatively clean, scoring 19 on California’s average air quality index – 60.7 percent better than the California average of 48, but still not in compliance with AQMD standards.
Avol said that because of the weather, wind, heat, stack height and other factors, much of the impacts could potentially be more outside of Redondo Beach. He suggested places impacted more by the power plant could be Torrance, Hawthorne and even potentially Palos Verdes. He also said that lower stacks could lead to more direct pollution disbursement in the surrounding community.
“When wind reverses, it can go any which way,” said Avol. “Hot air rises so if the operating temperature or stack height changes, that affects how high the gases go into the air before they cool off and plume touchdown is decided. If you put it higher in the air, it moves further away.”
Avol said that there are many health effects associated with particulate emissions. According to the EPA, those effects range from premature death in people with heart or lung disease, heart attacks, irregular heartbeat, aggravated asthma, decreased lung function to increased respiratory symptoms, such as irritation of the airways, coughing or difficulty breathing. Health costs associated with adverse air quality in the area are estimated to be $22 billion.
“The important part is that there is data to support the claim that long-term exposure to particulates does result in a significant amount of mortality,” said Avol.
He also said that all of the emissions from the plant don’t just come out of the stacks, but can also come from the lubrication and other process involved in producing power.
“The more we study about this, the more we find out about the serious outcomes,” said Avol. “In California we have been very concerned about air quality; many people think L.A. is a poster child for dirty air. We’ve come a long way to improve air quality, but we’re still in violation of National and State standards. L.A. is still unfit to breath.”
He pointed out that power plants aren’t the only reason the air is tainted. Cars and other activities add emissions into the air more than power plants, a statistic AES frequently points out.
Statistics show that oil and natural gas fired power plants, like the AES plant, only contribute 0.2 percent of the PM-2.5 emissions. According to an article in the California Environmental Law Reporter in 2002, simply cooking and household uses emit 9 percent of PM-2.5 particulates in the L.A area, far more than the power plants.
In 2008, close to 50 percent of total in-Basin energy consumption was attributed to the transportation sector, represented by diesel and gasoline, said the AQMD report.
The transportation sector accounted for 90 percent of in-Basin NOx emissions in 2008 and over 50 percent of the CO2 emissions, the report said. It also indicated that electricity production only contributed to 11 percent of CO2 emissions.
According to Santora, although cars contribute the most mobile particulate matter, the power plant is the largest stationary source of pollution in the community.
“Unfortunately we don’t have any local data of residents who live near the power plant,” Santora said. “That’s one of the challenges.”
BBR president Jim Light said that discussions regarding traffic pollution miss the point.
“The arguments about traffic pollution are a red herring,” said Light, who also noted that 6,000 kids attend school within 1.5 miles of the power plant. “It is unreasonable to expect people to suddenly stop commuting to work. But we do have a once in a lifetime opportunity to rid ourselves of the power plant and reduce air pollution. We should fight a new power plant as hard as we can for the health of our kids and the children of generations to come.”
But AES maintains that what it seeks is a compromise that most realistically gives the community an opportunity to improve its waterfront.
“We definitely have a strong preference to collaborate with you and the rest of community to develop a plan for the site that we can be proud of and is economically viable,” said Pendergraft. “The solution we are proposing is about more than a state-of-the-art power plant. It’s a solution for the entire site that has the financial wherewithal to eliminate the existing structure, remediate the site and free out what is now 38 acres that can be utilized for beneficial purposes – all without a single penny of tax payer money.”
But BBR and NoPowerPlant advocates see any power generation as unacceptable for the health of the community.
“Isn’t Redondo Beach supposed to be a Blue Zone and a Vitality City?” Asked Redondo Resident Kelly Charles at a council meeting in April. “Do you think a Vitality City would have this monster in their backyard? It was built in a different time, in a different age. This is not the time or age for this anymore.”
Coming next in the series: park possibilities