Archive for the ‘Nukes’ Category

April 15, 2010
For Immediate Release

Contact:
Karen Hadden, SEED Coalition, 512-797-8481

Opponents of the two new nuclear reactors proposed for Comanche Peak in Glen Rose, Texas presented oral arguments today before the three Atomic Safety and Licensing Panel judges. Attorney Robert V. Eye represented SEED Coalition, Public Citizen, True Cost of Nukes and Representative Lon Burnam in the case. The groups have many concerns with nuclear reactors, including safety and security risks, vast water consumption and the unsolved problem of radioactive waste.

The issues discussed today include:

• Impacts from a severe radiological accident at any one unit or other units at the Comanche Peak site have not been considered in the Environmental Report of the license application, but should be.

• Luminant’s Environmental Report fails to consider alternatives to more nuclear reactors, such as combinations of renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power, with energy storage and natural gas to create baseload power.

"Despite limitations on what was allowed to be presented about clean and safe energy alternatives to more reactors, we were able to make a strong case. Hopefully the panel of judges will listen," said State Representative Lon Burnam, District 90 – Ft. Worth. "Nuclear power is an outdated and dangerous way to generate electricity. Safer and more affordable options exist and are in use today." Burnam is an intervenor in the case.

"Luminant refuses to look at the impacts of severe accidents. Their probability argument is dishonest. They paint the risk from accidents as low, since they don’t happen every day. However, all it takes is one serious accident such as a meltdown or terrorist attack on a spent fuel pool to result in catastrophe, "said Eliza Brown, Clean Energy Advocate for the Sustainable Energy and Economic Development (SEED) Coalition. "Accident impacts would be huge. Deaths and cancers would result from radiation releases, as well as birth defects from genetic damage. Luminant refuses to acknowledge these catastrophic risks."

The NRC and Luminant attorneys have tried to get the contentions raised by intervenors dismissed. The panel of judges have yet to decide whether these important safety issues are given a full hearing.

Luminant’s attorneys made the argument that no project exists that combines solar, wind and energy storage together. At the same time, the utility is partnering with Shell in developing energy storage. There is no technological barrier that prevents the combination of wind, solar, energy storage and natural gas. Experts report that these resources can be combined to provide baseload power.

"At the same time that Luminant attorneys say that wind, solar and energy storage can’t be used for baseload power because it hasn’t been done yet, they want to build two nuclear reactors using a design that has never been built anywhere in the world. How’s that for hypocrisy?" said Karen Hadden, Executive Director of SEED Coalition.

April 15, 2010

Greg Harman
San Antonio Current QueBlog

A pair of Vermont consultants blasted an unfunded Texas commission this week for preparing legal language to govern the expansion of a two-state low-level radioactive waste dump in West Texas out of fear it may impact Vermont’s ability to dispose of its only nuclear reactor.

"We are gravely concerned that this rulemaking is occurring in a rushed and ill-advised manner," wrote Margaret Gunderson, a consultant to the Joint Fiscal Committee of the Vermont State Legislature, and Arnie Gunderson, an appointed member of the public oversight committee advising on operations at the troubled Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant. The Entergy-owned plant, recently found to be leaking radioactive tritium into area groundwater and ordered closed by the Vermont Legislature, is to be disposed of at the West Texas dump.

In a letter to the Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact Commissioners, the Gunderson’s expressed concern that if the Texas-Vermont compact is expanded to other states Vermont may end up losing the space needed for the Vermont Yankee and its growing waste stream. Texas has approved 2.31 million cubic feet for compact wastes from Texas and Vermont, though Vermont expects its one reactor to require at least 1 million cubic feet.

"The 2006 assessment does not include the recently uncovered leaking buried pipes and subsequent soil contamination by tritium, cesium, manganese, zinc, and cobalt," the pair wrote. "In light of these recent findings, it is critical that 1 million cubic feet of space contractually reserved for Vermont’s low-level radioactive waste must be reserved in the import rule for use beginning in 2012 not at some abstract time in the distant future."

Arnie Gunderson told the Current today that he is preparing a report for the Vermont Legislature now that will advocate pushing for a delay of the proposed import rule. Vermont members represent two seats on the eight-member TLLRWDC Commission.

As currently worded, the proposed rule states that room for Texas and Vermont will not be "reduced," but sets no specific volume level. Texas has four operating reactors that will require at least 2.7 million cubic feet of space at WCS. Applications are pending with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for four more reactors.

A representative of the TLLRWDCC was not immediately available for comment, but Commissioner John Ford told theCurrent six months ago that they were "not going to get ahead of where our decision-makers, legislators, and Governor want to go on" the potential import of additional waste streams.

Another reason Vermont was be getting heartburn over the move is that it also would potentially penalize the state if it chose to export Vermont Yankee waste to a state other than Texas.

A three-state compact to dispose of low-level radioactive wastes from Texas, Maine, and Vermont in Texas was approved by Congress in 1998, though Maine later dropped out over frustrations with delays getting a site open in Texas. Though WCS convinced Andrews County taxpayers last year to float the $75-million bond to pay for the compact dump’s construction, a legal challenge pending in El Paso has held up construction ever since.

Further complicating matters, the TLLRWDC Commission has not been funded by the Texas Legislature. Wrote the Gunderson’s: "Since the Texas Compact Commission has no staff and no counsel of its own, there has not been a thorough legal review of this process. We urge the Commission to not pass this language without adequate review by the State of Vermont, its Legislative Legal Counsel, and its Attorney General."

Meanwhile, railroad cars of DOE depleted-uranium waste that Utah Governor Gary Herbert refused entry to his state may be rerouted to WCS, according to a DOE Inspector General report.

Currently, Waste Control Specialists in Andrews County have licenses to dispose of federal Department of Energy waste and "compact" wastes from Vermont and Texas. But WCS has begun to threaten it may go bankrupt if it can’t get the compact site expanded to accept radioactive trash from other states, as well. A call to the company’s press officer in Andrews was forwarded to McDonald Public Relations in Austin, where Chuck McDonald was not immediately available.

WCS is owned by Harold Simmons, a Dallas-based billionaire and prominent Republican Party donor.

Comments Made Before Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact Commission

• SEED Coalition Comments 4/13/10
• Fairewinds Associates Inc. Comments 4/13/10
• Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS) Comments 4/13/10
• NIRS U.S. Commercial "Low-Level" Radioactive Waste Disposal Sites Fact Sheet April, 2009

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