Author Archive

Prevent Texas from Becoming the Nation’s Radioactive Waste Dump- Sample Comments

Here are some sample comments. Please email your comments on the Import Rule to the Compact Commission’s Interim Executive Director, Margaret Henderson at margaret.henderson@tllrwdcc.org by April 13, 2010.

The Texas Low Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact Commission wants to allow the entire country to dump nuclear waste at the Waste Control Specialists’ West Texas site. Other Compacts in the country have excluded out-of-Compact radioactive waste, and the Texas-Vermont Compact should do the same.

Compact Commissioners should not approve the import portion of the rule.
The Compact Commission is rushing ahead with this proposed rule, even though the TCEQ license has been appealed, the site has yet to be constructed, and the Compact Commission does not have adequate resources. How can the Commission responsibly open the state up to all the waste from around the country and possibly the world if they don’t even have the funding for staff to review proposed importation agreements; cannot afford to come to the public hearings on the rule; stated at their last meeting that they didn’t know if they would have enough funds to make it through this rulemaking process; cannot afford an attorney; and does not have bylaws yet? It is irresponsible and detrimental to the public interest. This process must be halted until it can be done properly.

What’s Wrong with the Import Rule? And How to Improve it

No Limitations on Waste
There are no limits in the rule for what can be imported. Radioactive waste should be limited to just the Compact Agreement states – Texas and Vermont. There is not enough capacity at the WCS site as licensed for the Texas and Vermont waste. Opening up to more waste predetermines that TCEQ will have to expand the license even though challenges to this license are still in the courts. (License is for 2,310,000 cubic feet of nuclear waste but the Compact Commission has said Vermont needs 1 million and Texas needs 5 million.) At a very minimum, the rule must include a limit to how much waste, in volume and curie levels, can be imported. The rule must also include an absolute ban on foreign radioactive waste.

Not Considered an Environmental Rule and No Environmental Impact Analysis
Approving this rule would be putting forth a “major environmental rule” without the required impact analysis. An independent environmental impact study must be conducted before this rule can go forward. This rule will be used by utilities wanting to build new nuclear power reactors to justify making more waste even though the WCS site has limited capacity. This rule could dramatically increase the amount of waste that comes to the site and increase the threats to the environment and public health.

No TCEQ Approval of the Waste Required
This import rule would allow WCS to obtain contracts to bring in more waste with no environmental analysis and without adequate licensed capacity. No radioactive waste streams outside of Texas and Vermont have been evaluated by TCEQ. The rule must require all studies and evaluations to be done before the waste is imported into the state. Likewise, the rule must require that before the Compact Commission can consider an import agreement, WCS needs a TCEQ amendment to its license for the waste it wishes to import. The TCEQ technical approval for the waste to be disposed of at the site must come before the Compact Commission policy approval to import.

No Consideration of Texas Liability
Texas will take title and liability to the waste once the Compact site closes and will be responsible for cleanup costs if the site leaks. The rule discusses the positive fiscal benefits of the rule but none of the liabilities. The rule should discuss the liability it creates for Texas taxpayers, who will ultimately face the financial and environmental burden of radioactive waste lasting thousands of years.

No Transportation Considerations
There are no provisions in the rule governing the transport of radioactive waste which will come in on trucks and trains through Texas communities. An independent and comprehensive transportation safety and impact study must be a condition of any consideration of all waste coming into Texas. If an accident occurs, state and local governments would be responsible for the emergency response and for taking actions to protect the public health and safety. The rule should include a requirement to notify emergency service providers 24-hours in advance of import and export shipments so that they can be prepared with proper equipment if they need to respond to a train or truck accident during transport of radioactive waste. The possibility and consequences of an accident during transport should also be considered in the rule as a liability for Texas. The rule should require a comparison of the manifest of the waste from its originating point to the waste that arrives at the WCS site.

WCS is Importing Radioactive Waste NOW
WCS is currently importing waste under their storage license. The compact commission governs the management and disposal of waste, and management includes storage. This rule must require WCS to seek Compact Commission approval to import non-Compact waste under their existing storage license.

No Public Participation Process
The 20-day comment period briefly mentioned in the rule is inadequate and prevents public participation. The rule must specifically outline the public input process – how and when the public will be informed of an import petition, how the public can participate, and how public comments will be considered by the Commission.

The Texas Low Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact Commission will hear feedback in Austin and Andrews on a proposed rule allowing the importation of so-called low-level radioactive waste into Texas from across the nation. Under the proposed rule, Waste Control Specialists would be allowed to import additional radioactive waste from other areas of the country and potentially the world into Andrews County, Texas.

Please come to the public hearing to tell the Compact Commission you do not want Texas to become the nation’s radioactive waste dumping ground!

• Austin Hearing – April 5, 2010, 1:00 PM at the Texas State Capitol Extension Auditorium, E1.004
• Andrews Hearing – April 6, 2010, 6:00 PM at Andrews High School Little Theater, 1401 NW Avenue K.

An environmental analysis performed by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality found problems with the site, including possible pathways to underground aquifers. The politically appointed TCEQ commissioners ignored the scientists? findings and issued the license anyways
and three TCEQ staff members have resigned as a result.

You can also submit written comments on the import rule.

• Take Action Now!

Even though the license granted by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality has been appealed by the Sierra Club, and the site has yet to be constructed, the eight-member Compact Commission is rushing ahead with this proposed rule at the behest of WCS and nuclear power plants, who are both desperate to find a place to send their waste. The Compact Commission does not even have a staff to review proposed importation agreements. A coalition of groups is opposing the rush to approve this rule. The groups are urging the Commission to deny the ability to import any waste other than Texas-Vermont compact waste or to put much stricter rules in place on how waste might be imported on a case-by-case basis. The present license does not even have enough capacity for waste from Texas and the other compact state Vermont.

You can find more information about the proposed rule at http://www.tllrwdcc.org/rule.html

April 7^th – Licensing Board to Hear Oral Arguments on STP Application in Bay City, TX

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) panel will hear oral argument in the South Texas Project Combined License (COL) proceedings beginning at 9 a.m. CDT on Wednesday, April 7, in Room 100 of the Main Hall in the Bay City Civic Center, 201 7th St. in Bay City.

The ASLB is the independent body within the NRC that presides over hearings where the public can challenge proposed licensing and enforcement actions. The session is open for public observation, but participation will be limited to the parties admitted to the proceeding.  These include:

• the Sustainable Energy and Economic Development (SEED) Coalition, the South Texas Association for Responsible Energy, Public Citizen  –  who have submitted several objections, or contentions, against the STPNOC application,
• the applicant – South Texas Nuclear Operating Company (STPNOC) – and
• NRC staff.

Early arrival is suggested to allow for security screening for all members of the public interested in attending. NRC policy prohibits signs, banners, posters or displays in the hearing room.

STP submitted an application Sept. 20, 2007, seeking permission to construct and operate two new nuclear reactors at the South Texas Project site near Bay City.  The ASLB panel will hear oral argument on several points: motions to dismiss several of the groups’ contentions; amended versions of some contentions; and the groups’ attempt to file additional contentions.

For access to documents:

• South Texas Project COL application are available on the NRC Web site at:
  www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/south-texas-project.html.
• ASLB proceeding documents are available in the agency’s electronic document library at:
  www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams/web-based.html.

April 15^th – Licensing Board to Hear Oral Arguments on Comanche Peak Application in Granbury TX.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) panel will hear oral argument in the South Texas Project Combined License (COL) proceedings beginning at 9 a.m. CDT on Thursday, April 15, in the Jury Selection Room of the Hood County Justice Center, 1200 W Pearl St. in Granbury. The session may extend into the evening if necessary

The ASLB is the independent body within the NRC that presides over hearings where the public can challenge proposed licensing and enforcement actions. The session is open for public observation, but participation will be limited to the parties admitted to the proceeding.  These include:

• the Sustainable Energy and Economic Development Coalition, Public Citizen, True Cost of Nukes, and State Representative Lon Burnam –  who have submitted several objections, or contentions, against Luminant’s application,
• the applicant – Luminant – and
• NRC staff.

Early arrival is suggested to allow for security screening for all members of the public interested in attending. NRC policy prohibits signs, banners, posters or displays in the hearing room.

Luminant submitted a COL application Sept. 19, 2008, seeking permission to construct and operate two new nuclear reactors at the Comanche Peak site near Glen Rose, Texas.  The ASLB panel will hear oral argument on several points: motions to dismiss several of the groups’ contentions; amended versions of some contentions; and the groups’ attempt to file additional contentions.

For access to documents:

• Comanche Peak COL application are available on the NRC Web site
  at: www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/comanche-peak.html.
• ASLB proceeding documents are available in the agency’s electronic document library at:
  www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams/web-based.html.
• More information about the ASLB can be found at:
  www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/organization/aslbpfuncdesc.html.

April 15^th – NRC Public Meeting regarding Exelon’s Early Site Permit Application.

Exelon has looked at building a plant in this area of Texas since 2007. It filed an early site permit application with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on March 25, 2010.  If approved by the NRC this would give Exelon three to 20 years to decide whether to build a plant in Victoria County. It can be extended for another 20 years, giving the company up to 40 years to begin construction from the time that the NRC approves the permit.

Once the early site permit application is submitted, it undergoes a three- to four-year review process by the NRC in which it will evaluate the project’s environmental impact and safety preparedness.

The NRC will hold a public meeting in the Mini Dome of the Victoria Community Center, 2905 E North St. in Victoria, from 7 to 9:30 p.m.  The meeting will consist of NRC staff presentations describing the overall ESP review process, which includes safety and environmental assessments, as well as how the public can participate in the process. The NRC will host an open house for an hour prior to the meeting so members of the public have the opportunity to talk informally with agency staff.

Water use figures prominently into the concerns of many. The Guadalupe River is the designated water source for the possible power plant, and Exelon has a water reservation agreement with the Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority (GBRA) that expires in 2013.

In the agreement with the GBRA, Exelon reserved 75,000 acre-feet of water every year. The plant’s water use supercedes that of other water users, including the city of Victoria and farmers in the region.  Given other Texas river authorities’ concerns about adequate water availability coming of a 2 year drought, this should be a serious concern for the region.

More information on the NRC’s new reactor licensing process is available on the agency’s Web site at:  www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors.html

We strongly urge the public to attend this meeting.

March, 2010

Ron Pernick
CleanEdge.com

In early February, President Obama did something that his predecessor George W. Bush was unable to do: he pushed the restart button on the U.S. nuclear power industry. Obama announced the first loan guarantee to the nuclear industry in nearly three decades – a conditional guarantee of $8.2 billion for two proposed nuclear power plants in Georgia. In this single move, he may have jump-started the nuclear power industry in the U.S.

Or not.

The loans come with some strings attached – and Southern Company, the company behind the Georgia plants, may not accept those terms. Loans aside, the U.S. nuclear industry has a long history of cost overruns, production delays, and the inability to solve its most vexing problem: the issue of nuclear waste and containment. Until these issues are resolved, all the government money in the world may not be able to overcome public opposition and financial common sense.

So the question I’d like to ask the president is: why nuclear – and why now? If it’s a question of reducing carbon emissions, creating jobs, and ensuring U.S. energy and economic security, there are far better options. The DOE has reported on how the U.S. could get 20 percent of its electricity from the wind by 2030. Clean Edge, along with Green America, has outlined a pathway for America to get 10 percent of its electricity from solar by 2025. And a number of studies have shown that renewables and energy efficiency are far more effective at reducing carbon emissions than nuclear power.

Indeed, if you pair solar and wind up with other baseload-power-providing renewables such as geothermal and biomass; efficiency measures (green buildings, retrofits, and the like); limited natural gas in high-growth areas; and a smart grid –– then there’s no need to expand nuclear or coal. Just last month, for example, the Northwest Power and Conservation Council unveiled its 6th Power Plan for the Pacific Northwest. This well-respected and influential group, which shapes the power direction of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Montana, outlined how the entire region could meet its increased energy demand primarily through conservation and efficiency measures.

The current proposed crop of nuclear power just doesn’t make financial sense, either. That’s why Wall Street has taken a big pass on nuclear power for more than three decades. Without the government insuring nuclear power plants (no private insurer will touch them) –– and the feds backing them with taxpayer guarantees –– they just wouldn’t get built. Sure, solar and wind require subsidies as well – but not wholly-run government insurance and financing programs.

Obama’s 2011 budget, for example, increases the Department of Energy loan guarantee authority for nuclear projects by $36 billion, to a total of $54.5 billion. Renewables’ potential share pales in comparison. The budget provides around one tenth of that amount for solar, wind, and other renewables – with just $3 to $5 billion of loan guarantees for energy efficiency and renewable energy projects. To the budget’s credit, it also includes a 30 percent tax credit for qualified investments in new, expanded, or re-equipped advanced energy manufacturing projects, allocating $5 billion to provide this tax credit to energy manufacturing projects. But if all of the nuclear money is allocated, admittedly a big if, it would leave solar, wind, and energy efficiency far behind.

Nuclear power now costs around $6-$8 billion per installed gigawatt to construct — and 3-7 years to complete a power plant. Wind power, on the other hand, can be deployed far more rapidly (usually in a year or so) for far less money (around $1.5-$2 billion per gigawatt installed). And even solar is now getting competitive, with prices dropping nearly 50 percent in 2009 and with some systems being installed in the $3 billion per gigawatt price range.

Add in vexing nuclear containment and security issues (nuclear energy technology is basically a precursor to nuclear bombs), uranium mining pollution, and the fact that after decades of operation the nuclear power industry has still not figured out what to do with its radioactive waste –– it makes one wonder why the U.S. would want to reenter this game.

In a recent Facebook post, Energy Secretary Steven Chu makes the case that we need more nuclear power because solar and wind, as variable resources, can only provide up to 20-30 percent of our electricity supply without major advances in energy storage. But with all due respect to Dr. Chu, even if solar and wind tap out at 30 percent without advances in storage – that’s still a significant number (equal to more than what we currently get from nuclear power). And if we are going to spend tens of billions of dollars on nuclear power simply because of its baseload qualities – why not take that money and invest it in the next generation of energy storage (large scale and distributed) and smart grid deployment instead? I’d happily place a bet on which investment would make the U.S. more secure and competitive.

Looking at all the evidence above, it’s pretty clear that there’s nothing clean about the current crop of nuclear technology. So, let’s not muddy the waters. Until we see a new generation of nuclear power –– one that is modular, scalable, and finally addresses radioactive waste and containment issues –– let’s be honest about its considerable shortcomings. I understand that nuclear power will continue to play a role in the U.S. for some time to come – we live in a diverse energy world – but trying to revive nuclear power under the banner of "clean" is simple and utter madness.

———

Ron Pernick is cofounder and managing director of Clean Edge, Inc. and coauthor of The Clean Tech Revolution.

At a site right next to radioactive waste?

Texas is already under assault from toxic mercury from coal burning power plants which spewed over 11,000 pounds into our air in 2007. Our children are at risk for permanent brain damage from mercury exposure and we rank worst in the nation for coal plant emissions.

Now the US Department of Energy (DOE) wants to dump on Texas and make us the national dumping ground for stored toxic mercury. It’s good to get the mercury out of circulation, but it could be stored at various sites, as opposed to all in one place. There are many viable sites that have military security and some already store mercury.

DOE wants to send up to 11,000 tons of toxic elemental mercury to the Waste Control Specialists (WCS) dump site near the Texas/New Mexico border in Andrews County Texas, DOE’s preferred site out of eight under consideration.

The WCS site is licensed to take hazardous waste. They already have highly radioactive "K-65" weapons waste from Fernald. They’re licensed to take over 59 million cubic feet of radioactive waste.

The March 20, 2010 Andrews County meeting began with a presentation by DOE’s David Levenstein. DOE relied on documents provided to them by Waste Control Specialists, as opposed to their own independent studies. They stated that there is no water under the site where the mercury would be stored. This completely flies in the face of documentation by former TCEQ employees who are concerned that groundwater is only 14 feet below the nearby trenches where radioactive waste would be stored. Mercury vapors could cause serious health impacts, including deaths. There is a risk of groundwater contamination. The Ogallala Aquifer underlies eight states in the wheat and soy growing region of the US.

Microbeads of mercury can condense on the storage canisters. 3 liter size flasks (76 pounds) would be used for the mercury in addition to 1000 pound containers.

The building would be made of sheet metal, which would probably not hold up well in a tornado. There have been 21 tornadoes in the past four decades. Mercury spewed across the region would be a disaster. Andrews County is 40% minority and 17% below poverty levels. How’s that for environmental justice?

WCS is owned by Dallas billionaire Harold Simmons, who was recently reported to be worth $3.9 billion. He wants Andrews County to provide $75 million for his radioactive waste dump. Maybe he could pull it out of his own pocket? Then again, the plan may be to strap the County with liability through the bond process and leasing buildings that the County would own. What happens if WCS goes broke later? Who pays for the clean up of hazardous waste, toxic mercury or radioactive waste if accidents or natural disasters occur?

Elemental mercury effects – This is what the EPA has to say…

Elemental (metallic) mercury primarily causes health effects when it is breathed as a vapor where it can be absorbed through the lungs. These exposures can occur when elemental mercury is spilled or products that contain elemental mercury break and expose mercury to the air, particularly in warm or poorly-ventilated indoor spaces. The first paragraph on this page lists the factors that determine the severity of the health effects from exposure to mercury. Symptoms include these: tremors; emotional changes (e.g., mood swings, irritability, nervousness, excessive shyness); insomnia; neuromuscular changes (such as weakness, muscle atrophy, twitching); headaches; disturbances in sensations; changes in nerve responses; performance deficits on tests of cognitive function. At higher exposures there may be kidney effects, respiratory failure and death. People concerned about their exposure to elemental mercury should consult their physician.

Additional information on the health effects of elemental mercury is available from the IRIS database at http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0370.htm.

Speak out Against Dumping Toxic Mercury on Texas!

Comments on the DOE mercury plan will be accepted until March 30, 2010.

March 30 is the deadline to comment on the Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement

Ways to comment include:

• Toll Free Fax: 1-877-274-5462
  Send a free fax letter now!

• Online at http://www.mercurystorageeis.com/comment.asp

• U.S. Mail:
  Mr. David Levenstein
  EIS Document Manager
  U.S. Department of Energy
  P.O. Box 2612
  Germantown, MD 20874

More Information:

• Major Aquifer map of Texas – Texas Water Development Board, September 1990. Note – We have marked the location of the WCS facility.

• Federal Register Environmental Impact Statement notice

• The Environmental Impact Statement is online at: http://www.mercurystorageeis.com/library.htm
  Both a summary and the full document are available.