Elon Musk’s company, Xai, is in the process of developing a significant supercomputer called “Colossus” in Memphis, Tennessee. This supercomputer will support the AI chatbot functioning under the name of that location.
Recently, the NAACP, along with another organization, filed an appeal challenging the Shelby County Health Department’s decision to issue aviation permits for 15 gas turbines at Xai’s data center in South Memphis.
The appeal also disputes the department’s classification of the temporary gas turbines as “non-road engines,” which means they don’t require the same approval processes. This classification is said to violate the Clean Air Act, allowing Xai to, essentially, set up and operate numerous contaminated turbines without needing to seek approval, notify the public, or prevent pollution.
The Southern Environmental Law Center is leading these appeals on behalf of the NAACP Memphis Chapter and Young, Talent & Green.
The Shelby County Health Department has not provided a comment regarding the situation.
Xai, established in 2023 by Elon Musk, announced its plan for a supercomputer in Memphis about a year later, specifically in a former Electrolux building. Contacting the company for immediate comment hasn’t been possible.
The Health Department approved the turbine permits for Xai’s facility on July 2, following several community discussions about the potential effects on the Southern Memphis area, which has faced various forms of industrial pollution issues over the years.
Xai expressed approval for the July 2 decision, boasting that its onsite power generation employs advanced emission control technology, positioning it as the cleanest facility in the country.
Memphis Democratic Representative Justin Pearson remarked that the Health Department’s approval sends a concerning message, suggesting it disregards local environmental laws after allowing a company that has previously operated many gas turbines without permission.
What is the appeal?
The appeal argues that the Health Department’s permit refers to the site as a new facility with no prior emissions sources, overlooking that some turbines have existed there for over a year. The group asserts that the campus has as many as 35 gas turbines, capable of generating over 420 megawatts of electricity, and could emit between 1,000 and 2,100 tons of nitrogen oxides, which can be harmful in high concentrations.
Instead, they claim Xai’s campus is the “main existing source of supply” for emissions, as each turbine can generate 900 tons of nitrogen oxides, well beyond the 250-ton threshold established for clean air methods. Existing major sources generally face stricter regulations, including emission limits and air quality impact analyses.
The appeal notes that Xai’s voluntary commitment to employ the best available control techniques is less rigorous than the standards required for other turbine operations.
Latricea Adams, CEO of Young, Gifted & Green, shared her concerns about the harmful industry impact on the Black community, emphasizing the need for the Shelby County Health Department to protect Memphis residents, especially in frontline areas like 38109, which struggle with a history of environmental challenges.
Recent reports from city officials in June indicated that independent tests found “no hazardous levels of air pollutants” in regions near the supercomputer campus. However, the Southern Environmental Law Center mentioned that these tests couldn’t measure ozone contamination, although monitors in the area have shown that ozone emissions have frequently surpassed federal limits over the last couple of years.
On June 5, the Southern Environmental Law Center submitted a petition to the Environmental Protection Agency, requesting acknowledgment that local standards are not being met, thereby demanding greater air permit requirements.
While the department claims that temporary turbines operating for under a year don’t need permits, the appeal suggests that Shelby County’s approved local plan does not contain an exemption for “temporary” large portable turbines.
This appeal effectively acts as a “decision stay,” suspending the permit while awaiting the board’s final ruling. The board must set a hearing date for the appeal within 60 days.
