Author Archive

June 28, 2010

By Kate Galbraith
Texas Tribune

Seventeen years ago, Texas turned on its last nuclear reactor, about 50 miles southwest of Fort Worth. In another decade, several more reactors could get built here — if events in Washington go the power companies’ way.

Nuclear power now accounts for 14 percent of Texas’s electricity usage (below the national average, 20 percent). The case for adding more reactors rests on a rising appetite for electricity sparked by a growing population and ever-proliferating gadgetry. And proponents point out that nuclear power, unlike coal or natural gas, is virtually free of the greenhouse gas emissions associated with global warming during its operations, although environmentalists strongly dispute the merits of the plants.

The federal government is moving ahead with a program that provides loan guarantees for the plants — a crucial step to placate financiers nervous about the economic risk of building them. Earlier this month, the Department of Energy agreed to a $3.4 billion guarantee for the expansion of a nuclear facility in Georgia, and the Obama administration recently asked Congress for more funds to help out more plants. Two proposed nuclear projects in Texas are high on the list of potential recipients.

"We’re very serious about moving ahead," says Jeff Simmons, who is leading the development efforts to add two new reactors to the Comanche Peak plant in Glen Rose, near Fort Worth. The project is a joint venture between subsidiaries of Luminant, a big Texas power generator, and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries. The companies are hoping to get a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission by the end of 2012 — a crucial green light for the plant.

"Before we even get the license, we will be hundreds of millions of dollars into the development of this project," Simmons says.

A second project is proposed for Bay City. Already, that site, called the South Texas Project, has two reactors, which began operating in the late 1980s. NRG Energy and CPS Energy, the San Antonio utility, have applied for a license to add two more reactors as well, although CPS recently whittled down its share of the project in a legal settlement as cost estimates ballooned.

Many hurdles remain before either project can be built, however. No new nuclear plants in the United States have been started in several decades (the Bay City and Glen Rose projects are the only ones in Texas and are among the last plants nationally to be built). Fears of another Three-Mile Island-type accident have hung over the industry, and the economics are daunting. Nuclear plants are extremely expensive to build — each new reactor can cost $6 billion to $8 billion, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute. As a result, many plant operators have convinced the government to extend the life of old plants rather than build new ones. (The four existing Texas reactors are new enough so that an extension is not an issue yet.)

Cost concerns have been compounded by the recent economic turmoil. With the credit markets still tight, financing a huge project is difficult. Also, the recession has depressed demand for electricity — which makes it less necessary to build more power plants in the near term. Texas’s electric usage last year was 1.3 percent less than forecast, and a new report from ERCOT, the state grid operator, projects that peak electricity use will grow by 1.72 percent annually between 2010 and 2019, compared with last year’s projection of 2 percent growth during those years. Also, low natural gas prices have pulled down the overall price of electricity, making it harder to justify building an expensive plant.

Economic uncertainties propelled one major nuclear plant operator, Exelon, to pull back on its plans. Last year Exelon changed its license application for a new plant in Victoria County to a less arduous application, for an "early site permit," which covers environmental and safety portions of the applications only.

"Right now we don’t plan to build a plant there. We do want to preserve the option to build there in the future," says Craig Nesbit, the vice president for communications at Exelon Generation.

Companies exploring a fourth possible Texas plant, in the Panhandle, have not yet applied for a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, despite statements in 2008 that an application was planned for 2009.

The federal government holds the key to the economics, through loan guarantees. These essentially mean that the government will pick up the tab if the borrower — the plant owner — defaults. Earlier this month Southern Company agreed to a $3.4 billion loan guarantee for a reactor project in Georgia, part of a $8.3 billion loan-guarantee package for the plant announced in February. The total federal pot currently stands at $18.5 billion — enough for one more project but perhaps not more. (There is also a far smaller amount allocated to loan guarantees for renewable energy projects, which are considered risky and in need of federal guarantees because of their newness.)

As a result, there is jostling for a place in the loan-guarantee queue. The South Texas Project is third in line, after the Georgia project and a plant proposed by Constellation Energy. The Comanche Peak project is fifth in line. The Obama administration asked Congress in May to add $9 billion to the $18.5 billion program, which would mean enough for a few more projects after the Georgia one.

Environmentalists think nuclear power is a terrible idea.

"We think expanding the Texas nuclear fleet is a huge mistake because of cost and waste issues primarily — and that there are significantly cheaper alternatives that could provide the power at a fraction of the cost," says Tom "Smitty" Smith, the Texas director of the environmental and consumer advocacy group Public Citizen. Energy-efficiency and renewable energy — such as the wind power that has grown quickly in Texas — would be far more cost-effective, he says.

Smith also maintains that nuclear plants’ "zero-emissions" arguments on greenhouse gases (although potentially crucial in the forthcoming debate about national energy legislation) are a red herring. "There are enormous emissions of greenhouse gases during the mining and enrichment, construction, decommissioning and then the storage for 50,000 years of this waste," he says. (At both existing Texas plants, the waste is stored on-site.)

But in Somervell County, home to the Comanche Peak reactors, there is community support for building more. The county has used homeland security grants to buy a military-style armored truck — to defend itself and its plant if needed.

"We’ve got to have more nuclear power," says County Judge Walter Maynard. "From a selfish standpoint, it’s very viable to our local economy."

Expired waste, cracks in containment pad found at West Texas site

Sunday, June 27, 2010

By Betsy Blaney
Associated Press /Austin American Statesman

LUBBOCK — A site in West Texas for disposing of some of the nation’s low-level radioactive waste has two more problems to deal with.

Officials with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality said the agency will issue a notice of violation within two weeks because the company that operates the site, near the town of Andrews, has stored a concrete canister filled with the hottest low-level radioactive material beyond the 365 days allowed under a waste processing license.

The commission is drafting requirements for Waste Control Specialists to deal with the violation, but because of "potential issues related to repackaging and transportation, the TCEQ will allow the waste to remain on site as long as WCS complies with TCEQ’s corrective action requirements," agency spokeswoman Andrea Morrow wrote in an e-mail.

No fines will be issued, she said.

Last month, the environmental agency denied the company’s request for an extension until June 8, 2011, for the canisters, which came from a Tennessee radioactive processing plant.

In a routine check at the Andrews site, state inspectors also found cracks up to an inch wide on a 10-acre asphalt pad near where the canisters of radioactive material sit.

Morrow said the pad is important because it is a safeguard against ground contamination.

A company spokesman said he was not aware of any pending action from the commission. Rickey Dailey said the company thinks the nine canisters should be classified under its storage license, which has no time limit for interim use.

"We have a difference of opinion, and we’re continuing discussions to resolve the issue," he said.

The cracks were repaired and sealed last month, Dailey said. He said they were "superficial" and did not jeopardize the integrity of the pad.

Inspectors now want the company to submit engineering assessments on the pad’s condition and its long-term viability and to provide details of past and future repairs, according to a May 25 commission letter to the company.

They will also look at how the pad was constructed years ago, said Susan Jablonski, the agency’s radioactive materials division director.

"We want to do further investigation," she said. "We’re interested in the condition of the pad for any storage of radioactive material as well as the ongoing maintenance of that in the future."

The pad once held hundreds of 20,000-pound canisters of uranium byproduct from a shuttered weapons plant in Ohio, where the ore was processed for use in reactors to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons from the 1950s until 1989. These canisters are buried at the site.

The state’s pending action against Waste Control Specialists comes as a commission overseeing a low-level radioactive disposal compact involving Texas and Vermont is considering allowing 36 other states to dispose of their material, which includes workers’ clothing, glass, metal and other materials used at nuclear power plants, hospitals, universities and research labs.

The commission has not set a date to vote on proposed rules for importing the waste, which are opposed by some lawmakers and environmental groups.

News of the cracks and the pending violation notice didn’t surprise environmental groups.

"I think that, so far, Waste Control Specialists’ performance doesn’t inspire confidence," said Trevor Lovell of Public Citizen Texas . "This is poor performance from a company that boasts of being the nation’s solution for low-level radioactive waste."

Since 2004, the site has gotten six violation notices, none of which were classified as major. The commission has given the site a high compliance rating.

Two years ago, environmental commissioners signed off on an agreement for two violations and fined the company about $151,000.

The site had mismanaged hazardous waste near a rail car unloading area, and personnel failed to get authorization before letting radioactive material — including plutonium 239 and radium 226 — be released into the septic system inside a laboratory.

Should the commission adopt the rules on procedures for importing the waste from the other states, Morrow said the company would need to apply for an amendment to its disposal license to allow for burial of that type of waste.

June 12, 2010

Shelley Childers
CBS 7 News

Andrews, TX – Two sides clash at a Waste Control Specialist meeting held in Andrews today, drawing crowds of supporters and protesters for the future dumpsite of low-level radioactive materials, just 30 miles west of the city.

Today the Compact Commissioners were meeting to discuss the wording of the import rule, as it stands now 36 states and possibly other countries will be allowed to dispose of their low-level radioactive materials at the Waste Control Specialists site, but protesters argue health and safety is an issue.

"We’re not technically against the people personally, but we’re against the company and what they’re trying to do, and what they want to bring," said protester and vice president of the group Promote Andrews, Elizabeth Wheeler.

In a project that is more than 15 years in the making, WCS and the City of Andrews is hoping to soon be importing low-level radio active waste from around the country, but not every resident supports the idea.

"That’s very scary that they’re wanting to bring this hazardous material into my county, via trucks and trains and bury it here, when there’s potentially aquifers and other hazards at risk," said Timothy Gannaway, the secretary of Promote Andrews.

"Water is money in West Texas, and if there were water on that site, somebody would be irrigating with it or using it for drinking water and it’s just not potable water," said Russell Shannon, a resident who supports the radio-active waste site.

Officials say they have been studying the geography of the land for over a decade, in preparation for this, and Andrews Mayor Robert Zap points out, much of our medical research produces nuclear waste.

"For instance, Alzheimer’s disease, one of our most accurate diagnostic tools is nuclear, without it where are we going to go to?"

That waste has to be disposed of somewhere, but wheeler says she fears human error. "History does repeat itself, there has been spills and accidents and I’m not saying it’s their fault, it’s just how it is."

"We’ve got to look at it from a big picture perspective, we need to find a solution to disposing of this in a proper way and we believe Andrews has the answer for that," said Andrews City Manager Glen Hackler.

By Cierra Putman
NewsWest 9

ANDREWS – A heated debated in Andrews County continues as once again as supporters and protestors of storing radioactive waste locally face-off.

"At the beginning, I was for it because I thought hey new jobs and everything," Promote Andrews Protestor, Francisco Salciao, said.

For Salciao and his fellow protestors say hundreds of temporary jobs and 75 permanent ones just isn’t enough.

At least, not if it means Waste Control Specialists can bring radioactive waste into Andrews County.

"This waste is going to be trucked and trained from all across the United States into our home town and that’s very scary," Timothy Gannaway with Promote Andrews, said.

The protestors fear water contamination, even though Waste Control Specialists said that won’t happen. Most of Andrews sided with the company.

"I think it’s a sad thing for them to come and I think they just want to stir up trouble," WCS Supporter and Employee, Quincy Cronenworth, said. "The government watches over it, they have lots of licenses they have to get, so I know it’s environmentally safe."

A sea of green WCS supporters packed a disposal Compact Commission Meeting to support the company’s plan.

Around town, more signs of support as could be seen as WCS supporters who couldn’t make it to the meeting showed their support with actual signs. They put them on the back of cars, in front of houses and even outside of businesses.

Still, protestors didn’t care they were outnumbered.

"Waste Control Specialists spent a lot of time and money to make this town look like it’s in favor of them," Gannaway said. "We feel that’s very misleading. If you look at our signs, we made our own signs, we made our own shirts, this is definitely a grassroots movement. Waste Control Specialists is a corporate movement from a billionaire in Dallas who owns the facility."

WCS supporters say the benefits outweigh the risks.

"It’s an industry that has to be monitored, but with proper oversight, with proper safety precautions and regulatory issues, we think those things have been mitigated," Another WCS supporter, said.

But until the plan is finalized, Andrew’s minority will keep fighting against the majority.

06/15/2010

By BETSY BLANEY / Associated Press
Dallas Morning News

A commission overseeing low-level radioactive waste disposal in Texas has withdrawn and will revise proposed rules that could allow 36 other states to send nuclear waste for burial near the New Mexico line.

Bob Gregory of the Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact Commission said Monday the panel voted unanimously Saturday to pull the proposed rules as initially published and repost them with some amendments and revisions.

A representative from the Texas Attorney General’s Office told the commission during a Saturday meeting it could not change the rules then because there was nothing on the agenda to allow it, said Chuck McDonald, spokesman for Waste Control Specialists, the company that operates the waste site about 30 miles west of Andrews in West Texas.

The law requires the commission to republish the rules with the changes and then consider them at a future meeting, Thomas Kelley, a spokesman for the attorney general’s office, said in an e-mail.

"Significant changes were made to the rules and the law requires re-publishing under those circumstances," Kelley’s e-mail stated.

The commission’s agenda Saturday did not include a vote on the rules that were published in February.

It was not clear Monday when the new rules would be published in the Texas Register. Texas law requires the rules be posted for 30 days, followed by a minimum 30-day comment period, before a vote can be taken.

Gregory said he had as many as 30 pages of revisions he wanted considered, and another commissioner wanted to add an amendment.

"I’m pleased that additional time is being given for a much more thorough discussion and consideration and revisions that were certainly needed, in my opinion," he said.

If adopted, the rules would allow low-level material from 36 states’ nuclear power plants, hospitals, universities and research labs to be buried at a site near the New Mexico border.

McDonald said Waste Control Specialists wants the commission to do its job.

"We had no objection to the delay," he said Monday.

Karen Hadden, executive director of the Sustainable Energy and Economic Development Coalition, said she was pleased. Her group opposes letting states other than Texas and Vermont bring nuclear waste to West Texas. The proposed rules would change a pact initially made between Texas and Vermont.

"Basically, we gained a delay," Hadden said. "I think it’s a good thing. I hope they take their time. These rules are really important."

Hadden and other opponents of the huge dumping ground say the waste will pollute groundwater and harm the environment. Waste Control Specialists contends it’ll be safe, and many local residents applaud expansion as a way to bring more jobs and prosperity to the West Texas scrubland.

Proponents in Andrews outnumber those against the low-level dump site, which has not yet been built. Approval of its design and precise location is pending from the state environmental regulators.

___

Online:

Waste Control Specialists LLC: http://www.wcstexas.com

Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact Commission: http://www.tllrwdcc.org

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality: http://www.tceq.state.tx.us

Nuke Free Texas: http://www.nukefreetexas.org