Archive for the ‘Nukes’ Category

May 31, 2015

By RAY HENRY
Savannah Morning News

ATLANTA — Georgia Power executives will face questions this week about the delays and expense of building a new nuclear plant.

Utility regulators in Georgia will begin a new cycle of oversight hearings Tuesday delving into the company’s progress in building two more nuclear reactors at Plant Vogtle in eastern Georgia. Ultimately, the state’s elected regulators on the Public Service Commission must decide whether to give initial approval to Georgia Power’s spending on the project during the six-month period ending Dec. 31.

The facility is one of three nuclear plants under construction in the United States. Georgia Power, which owns a 46 percent stake in the project, originally expected to pay $6.1 billion on its share of construction costs. Delays have pushed that figure upward to $7.5 billion, according to the latest company estimate.

Analysts working for the Public Service Commission predicted in March the cost could reach $8.2 billion or more since Georgia Power would need to buy replacement electricity if its new plant is not operating on time.

The first of its new reactors was supposed to start operating in April 2016, with the second following a year later. Those time periods have already been pushed back about three years.

Georgia Power said earlier this year finishing the nuclear plant is cheaper than halting construction and instead building natural gas-fired plants. While nuclear plants are enormously expensive to build, they produce power relatively cheaply once they start operating and are not affected by swings in fossil fuel prices.

The facility is "an investment in the future and is expected to provide significant long-term fuel savings for our customers over its lifetime," the company said in a February filing.

Still, the nuclear industry has failed to show it can meet schedules or budgets during construction.

Two utility companies in South Carolina, SCANA Corp. and Santee Cooper, have run into similar delays while building reactors of the same design at the Summer nuclear station. Separately, the Tennessee Valley Authority is on the verge of completing a second nuclear reactor at its Watts Bar plant that was first started in the 1970s. The project to revive that partially completed reactor ran about $2 billion over original estimates.

PRESS RELEASE

February 09, 2015

CHARLOTTE, N.C., February 9, 2015 – AREVA has signed an agreement with Waste Control Specialists LLC (WCS) to assist with their license application and environmental report for the construction of an interim used nuclear fuel storage facility.

WCS filed a letter of intent on February 6, 2015, with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) stating their intention to seek a license to operate an offsite Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation at their 14,000-acre facility in Andrews, Texas.

"AREVA is pleased to provide WCS with its licensing experience and global expertise for the safe storage, transport and management of used nuclear fuel," said David Jones, senior vice president, of AREVA’s Back End division, North America. “This initiative, which already has the consent of local stakeholders, will deliver an economically viable option for used fuel management while more permanent solutions are addressed.”

AREVA is a global leader in the transportation and storage of used nuclear fuel. More than 40 percent of American utilities use AREVA’s advanced NUHOMS® horizontal storage technology. The group has already sold 900 storage canisters in the U.S., making it the leading supplier for this solution.

• VIDEO: Watch used nuclear fuel transfer from reactor to external interim storage.
• Learn more about AREVA’s used fuel storage solutions
• Download this press release (PDF)

Wednesday, February 11, 2015

EE News

Last week, Waste Control Specialists filed a letter of intent with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to submit a license application for the country’s first interim storage site for high-level nuclear waste by April 2016. During today’s OnPoint, Rod Baltzer, president of Waste Control Specialists, discusses his company’s plans and the potential hurdles facing the approval and construction of the facility. Baltzer also talks about his expectations for this proposal to become a part of congressional action on nuclear waste.

Transcript

Monica Trauzzi: Hello and welcome to OnPoint. I’m Monica Trauzzi. With me today is Rod Baltzer, president of Waste Control Specialists. Rod, thanks for coming on the show.

Rod Baltzer: Oh, you’re welcome.

Monica Trauzzi: Rod, WCS has filed a letter of intent with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to submit a license application for the country’s first interim storage site for high-level nuclear waste by April 2016. You’ve chosen Andrews County in Texas as the site for the facility. Why Andrews County?

Rod Baltzer: We currently have a low-level radioactive waste disposal operation in Andrews County. Andrews County has been educated over the last 20 years with our efforts on low-level waste, and it was easy to educate them on high-level waste. They’re very supportive of us and this industry, so it was a logical place to start.

Monica Trauzzi: So Andrews County commissioners passed a resolution supporting your company’s plans; however, local media has reported that there are concerns from people in nearby counties about the potential risks associated with this facility. Do you believe that you have adequate support from the community and the surrounding areas?

Rod Baltzer: Yeah, we always try to do what we call concentric circles. So we start with Andrews as the center of that circle and then spread throughout the Permian Basin and then larger, into Texas and Austin and other places that are further away. That support is something that you build over time. It’s an educational outreach effort. We want to make sure that the community is aware of what we’re doing, why we’re doing it and how it’s done safely.

Monica Trauzzi: Yucca Mountain has faced quite an uphill climb. How convinced are you that this facility won’t see a similar outcome?

Rod Baltzer: Well, never say never. With our low-level facility we thought that would take a shorter period of time than it did. It wound up taking us over 15 years and $500 million. We don’t expect that on high-level, but never say never. We do think we learned a lot through that process with low-level, so we do think the time is right or we wouldn’t have started the process now.

Monica Trauzzi: And what are your projections for how long this process might take?

Rod Baltzer: We think it’ll be about a year for us to submit the license application, so that April 2016 — about a three-year licensing review by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, another year or so to build the facility, and so we would be ready for operations by the end of 2020.

Monica Trauzzi: So as part of this you’d like to see the Nuclear Waste Policy Act amended. For what reason, and is the construction of this facility contingent on that?

Rod Baltzer: So there’s been some discussion in the industry of if you have to amend the Nuclear Waste Policy Act or not. If there are policy changes or legislative clarifications that need to be made, you know, whatever that involves, we just want to make sure there was an outlet where DOE can enter into a contract with us as a private company to pay for storage of this used nuclear fuel.

Monica Trauzzi: And is this contingent? Is the construction of this facility contingent on that?

Rod Baltzer: Yeah, in order for us to start construction we would need to have both the payment mechanism and the license issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Monica Trauzzi: What else are you looking for from the federal government?

Rod Baltzer: That’s really it. We’re not looking for any kind of handouts. We’re not looking for them to help us with our consent-based program or any of that. This is really something that we think we are best situated for, that we’ve got education and experience with, and so we want to go provide this solution.

Monica Trauzzi: And how does it get paid for?

Rod Baltzer: The Department of Energy would pay for storage. So currently they’re paying settlement fees and other things for storage of this at individual nuclear power plant sites. We would take the waste from the individual nuclear power plants, consolidate them at our site, and receive those payments instead.

Monica Trauzzi: So that is a potential hurdle for the project to overcome.

Rod Baltzer: That is, yes.

Monica Trauzzi: What’s the interplay between the proposal of this facility and the potential congressional action we’re expecting on nuclear waste legislation?

Rod Baltzer: This will probably come up as part of the debate. There’s been some debate of should you have an interim storage facility before there is a permanent repository. We’re not saying that you need a permanent repository or shouldn’t have a permanent repository or where that repository should be. All we know is that there needs to be a solution. There’s permanently shut-down reactors that all they have right now is dry pad storage. That should be consolidated so those communities can go and use that for whatever beneficial reuse purposes they may have. It would also save the Department of Energy and taxpayers a lot of money to consolidate that in one site instead of having various licenses, security forces and maintenance of a wide range of pads.

Monica Trauzzi: And how much time could an interim storage facility buy before a decision needed to be made on a permanent facility?

Rod Baltzer: Well, we think an interim storage facility will probably be around for 60 to 100 years. It’s a long time. By the time a repository opens and starts taking waste and empties out an interim storage facility, there will be a lot more waste in storage that needs a home as well.

Monica Trauzzi: What are your expectations now with Republicans in the majority of Congress — expectations for how nuclear issues will be handled?

Rod Baltzer: Our expectation is that we’re a bipartisan solution. We’ve had legislation in Texas related to low-level and we wound up having more than 90 percent of the Republicans and more than 80 percent of the Democrats vote for us. It’s interesting that there are environmental challenges and problems out there that need solutions, but I think both can come together when there is a solution that’s outside the Beltway, doesn’t require a lot of funding and can be done by the private sector safely, compliantly, and protect the environment.

Monica Trauzzi: All right, we’ll end it there. I appreciate your time. Thanks for coming on the show.

Rod Baltzer: Thank you.

Monica Trauzzi: And thanks for watching. We’ll see you back here tomorrow.

[End of Audio]

Friday, January 31, 2014

By Forrest Wilder
Texas Observer

Waste Control Specialists
WCS site

Even as a low-level radioactive waste dump grows in West Texas, lawmakers are pondering the possibility of making Texas the home to at least some of the nation’s immense stockpile of "high-level" radioactive waste. Speaker of the House Joe Straus charged the House Committee on Environmental Regulation with studying "the disposal of high-level radioactive waste in Texas" and to make recommendations on how to permit a disposal or "interim storage facility." Currently, the nation’s 104 nuclear power plants have nowhere to send their spent fuel rods, after Nevada’s controversial Yucca Mountain site was scuttled.

Environmentalists reacted to Straus’ directive with palpable anger.

"It’s idiotic to even consider disposing of high-level radioactive waste in Texas," said Tom "Smitty" Smith of Public Citizen. "Other states have rejected having high-level radioactive waste dumped on them. Texas shouldn’t even be talking about the possibility. It’s all risk and very little reward for Texans."

It was not immediately clear if Straus has Waste Control Specialists’ dump site near Andrews, Texas, in mind or a different project. Notably, an Austin-based company is pursuing a plan to store high-level waste near Big Spring. Owned by Dallas GOP billionaire Harold Simmons, who died last year, Waste Control has long angled to become the nation’s one-stop site for radioactive and hazardous waste. Lubricated with Simmons’ political donations and high-powered lobbyists, the state of Texas has generally allowed Waste Control to keep expanding the dump, despite concerns that it lies perilously close to water tables.

But the company has been mum about plans, if any, for high-level waste. An email to company spokesman Chuck McDonald was not immediately returned.

However, an email obtained by the Observer shows that Waste Control has its eyes on new streams of radioactive waste currently banned by the state.

In October, a Texas Commission on Environmental Quality staffer wrote to her superior, Bobby Janecka, that "WCS is presenting that they are going to request to dispose of greater than class c [radioactive waste]. … They are also saying they expect us to approve [depleted uranium] may 2014."

(Notably, Janecka was chief of staff to state Rep. Tryon Lewis, the Republican who represents Andrews and has authored legislation that benefits Waste Control.)

Generally, low-level radioactive wastes are classified as Class A, B or C, with "C" being the most radioactive and long-lived. "Greater than Class C" waste is another grouping, encompassing the most dangerous of so-called low-level radioactive waste.

Depleted uranium is being generated in large quantities at a uranium enrichment plant next door to the Waste Control dump in Eunice, New Mexico. Both depleted uranium and Greater than Class C fall into a regulatory gray area between "low-level" and "high-level" radioactive waste. It appears that the interim charge is probably referring to spent nuclear fuel rods—the stuff once slated for Yucca Mountain, Nevada.

The interim study charge could also apply to another proposed radioactive waste facility, one that’s been flying under the radar for some time. Austin-based AFCI Texas has been in talks with local, state and federal officials about building an "interim" storage facility near Big Spring for spent nuclear fuel. AFCI is co-owned by Bill Jones, a Rick Perry ally who serves on the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department board.

Reached by phone today, AFCI co-owner Monty Humble, said he was surprised by the interim charge.

"It’s ironic you’re asking because I’m trying to figure out where the heck it came from too," Humble said. "I’ll be truthful and say we’re intensely interested in the question but I have no idea where that charge came from."

Humble said the interim charge is "broader" than what they’ve been proposing. AFCI said it’s only looking at storing high-level radioactive waste, not burying or disposing of it, though he wouldn’t rule that out either.

Forrest Wilder, a native of Wimberley, Texas, is associate editor of the Observer. Forrest specializes in environmental reporting and runs the "Forrest for the Trees" blog. Forrest has appeared on Democracy Now!, The Rachel Maddow Show and numerous NPR stations. His work has been mentioned by The New York Times, the Washington Post, the New Yorker, Time magazine and many other state and national publications. Other than filing voluminous open records requests, Forrest enjoys fishing, kayaking, gardening and beer-league softball. He holds a bachelor’s degree in anthropology from the University of Texas at Austin.

Thursday, April 30, 2015

Hannah Northey, E&E reporter
E&E Daily

The Obama administration’s call for solutions to the country’s nuclear waste problems got a response yesterday from a company proposing the construction of an underground storage facility in southeastern New Mexico to store casks of used fuel.

Holtec International Inc. announced its proposal at an Albuquerque news conference alongside officials from two counties — Eddy and Lea — which have a combined population of about 110,000 people in New Mexico’s "nuclear corridor."

Holtec President and CEO Kris Singh said the project’s underground cavities could store waste in canisters for a century. The $5 billion venture, he said, will use technology that has been tested around the world.

"It has no reaction with the environment. Zero," he said. "In terms of accidents created by man … it’s essentially immune."

The project’s endorsed by Gov. Susana Martinez, a rising star in the Republican Party, who touted the project in a letter to Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz earlier this month. She cited the site’s arid, isolated location and support from surrounding communities with a history of managing projects like the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) near Carlsbad.

"There is a significant and growing national need for such an interim facility," Martinez wrote. "Millions of taxpayer dollars are currently being spent on monitoring and oversight of spent fuel each year, and millions more are being spent on settlement payments related to waste disposition."

But New Mexico’s Democratic senators were less enthusiastic.

Sens. Martin Heinrich and Tom Udall said they would prefer that a permanent, national waste repository be sited before New Mexico embraces highly radioactive material.

Heinrich in a statement said southeastern New Mexico should be commended for its leadership in the nuclear industry, but cautioned, "We can’t put the cart before the horse."

"I cannot support establishing an interim storage facility until we are sure there will be a path forward to permanent disposal," he said. "There must be an open and transparent process that allows for input on what’s best for our entire state."

Udall called the discussion "premature" amid the Department of Energy’s investigation into a radioactive leak at WIPP. An independent board appointed by DOE earlier this month found the accident was "preventable" and that the Los Alamos National Laboratory, which ships nuclear waste to the site, did not implement the proper packing and treatment procedures for its waste (E&ENews PM, April 16).

"I’m not comfortable supporting anything in New Mexico until I know what’s on the table, and regardless, this conversation is premature," the senator said. "We shouldn’t be talking about this while the state and DOE are still addressing the serious accident and radiation release at WIPP."

Udall said his primary focus is on reopening WIPP safely and protecting workers, adding that he fought to ensure the site did not accept high-level waste when it was first opened. Any future nuclear waste mission, he said, would need broad support throughout the state before he would consider supporting it.

"It’s putting a dangerous cart ahead of the horse to build an interim disposal site without a plan for permanent disposal — whether the site is built in New Mexico or anywhere else in the country," he said. "The Blue Ribbon Commission report said such sites need to move in ‘parallel,’ and I am very concerned about the risk that nuclear waste could be orphaned at a site that was not designed for permanent storage."

While Holtec’s Singh said the company had overcome technological challenges, he was unable to offer similar assurances on the political front. Singh said it would require support from all levels of government — federal, state and local — and from Congress and the executive branch.

"These people operate in policy areas that are way above my pay grade," Singh said.

‘You’ve got your work cut out for you’

Singh also acknowledged that there are competing locations for storage sites and that DOE would need to be involved.

Dallas-based Waste Control Specialists LLC has proposed building the nation’s first private, temporary storage site for spent reactor fuel in an arid corner of West Texas. The company is slated to ask the Nuclear Regulatory Commission next year for a license to build an interim storage site in Andrews County, about 350 miles west of Dallas (Greenwire, Feb. 9).

Moniz told a Senate hearing last month that the Texas proposal was "extremely interesting" and that he was keen to learn more.

Singh said Holtec would submit its application to NRC in about a year and that the project could transition from a pilot to a commercial venture.

He also said the interim storage facility, the details of which are still being worked out, fits "perfectly" within the Obama administration’s waste strategy.

The administration is open to alternatives for storing waste after deciding in 2010 to abandon the decades-long effort to open a nuclear dump at Yucca Mountain, Nev., in the face of fierce political and legal opposition. A commission appointed by President Obama to study the nation’s nuclear-waste dilemma later recommended that the nation move beyond the Yucca Mountain mess and come up with a workable long-term plan for waste disposal.

Moniz in March announced that DOE would begin identifying and vetting a defense-waste-only repository and separate sites for one or more interim facilities for old fuel from shuttered reactors. But Moniz also made clear that DOE will need congressional approval — and more authority — to actually build the facilities (E&ENews PM,March 24).

In New Mexico, the Eddy-Lea Energy Alliance, a consortium of city and county governments, has been advocating the proposed interim storage site for years, noting that it’s a national security issue and no one else wants the waste (Greenwire, Feb. 3, 2012).

John Heaton, a special energy assistant to the mayor of Carlsbad, said the alliance has met with stakeholders, industry and the NRC to vet the project. Securing an NRC license, he added, could take three years. He also said he expects the arrangement would lead to incentives for the state and host communities.

But at least one comment at the press conference signaled that the public — or at least environmental groups — will take convincing.

One commenter asked how residents near transportation routes leading to the site would be included in the dialogue. Heaton responded that trucks heading to WIPP are under close surveillance and accidents are rare to nil.

"Those are the kinds of things we expect to play on when we go through the rail adoption system," Heaton said, adding that the waste would be transported by rail in dry casks. "We’re going to have to go to community to community and state by state just like we did with the WIPP project."