Archive for the ‘Toxic Waste Dump’ Category

Friday December 10, 2010

By BETSY BLANEY / Associated Press
Lubbock Avalanche-Journal

LUBBOCK, Texas — Opponents of a plan to allow nuclear waste from 36 other states to be buried near the Texas-New Mexico border raised their concerns Thursday at a public hearing, complaining that the rules are being rushed through the approval process.

Craig McDonald of Texans for Public Justice was among the 25 people who argued against the proposal during the meeting of the Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact Commission in Austin. He called it a "rush to radiation," suggesting the 30-day comment period that ends Dec. 26 doesn’t allow nearly enough time to weigh the issues, particularly because it comes during the holiday season.

"In the development of the timeline for this rule the commercial interests have been placed well ahead of the public interest," he said. "Public safety and fiscal responsibility demand a much more thorough examination of the consequences of the adoption of this rule."

But Rick Jacobi, a licensed nuclear engineer speaking on behalf of the company that operates the site, Dallas-based Waste Control Specialists, said the commission has given the public ample time to comment.

"This rule has been more than thoroughly reviewed, debated, discussed, amended and considered by both the public and the commission," Jacobi said.

A previous set of rules withdrawn for revisions this summer had allowed for a 90-day comment period.

Opponents of the plan far outnumbered the supporters at the meeting and expressed concerns about the potential dangers of transporting the waste and the threat to the Ogallala Aquifer and other groundwater sources should radiation leak from the site. Supporters of the site say the Ogallala is not beneath the property.

The eight-member commission made up of appointees by the governors of Texas and Vermont approved the wording of the proposed rules last month. Those states have a compact that allows both states to bury nuclear waste at the privately operated site in West Texas.

Waste Control Specialists, which got its license to dispose of low-level nuclear waste last year, has yet to receive final approval from Texas environmental regulators to build the compact’s disposal facility 30 miles west of Andrews.

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality is considering an amendment to the company’s disposal license that would modify the design and construction of the compact’s site and change its environmental monitoring.

Texas and Vermont have already been given clearance to bury at the site once the facility is built. Federal waste will be disposed at the site but in a separate location on the property.

In the early 1980s, the federal government started urging states to build low-level nuclear waste landfills, either on their own or in cooperation with other states in compact systems Since then, South Carolina entered into a compact with New Jersey and Connecticut, agreeing to dispose of nuclear waste at a landfill that later accepted waste from dozens of other states.

Should the proposed rules be adopted by the commission, low-level radioactive waste from 36 other states could be also dumped at a privately run facility in a remote region of West Texas. Requests for importation or exportation would be considered on a case-by-case basis.

The waste would become the property of Texas once the disposal facility accepts the low-level waste, and the state would be liable for any possible future contamination after the facility closes.

If the more recent proposed rules are approved, the new disposal site would start taking worker clothing, glass, metal and other low-level materials currently stored at nuclear power plants, hospitals, universities and research labs.

The commission hasn’t yet set a date for its next meeting.

December 2, 2010

By MATTHEW L. WALD
New York Times

WASHINGTON — Aged nuclear plants in Vermont and Illinois may be playing the equivalent of musical chairs in a graveyard, vying for space at a dump in Texas whose owner hopes to accept radioactive waste from many other states.

Under an alliance struck 16 years ago between Vermont and Texas, tiny Vermont can fill up to 20 percent of the space at any low-level nuclear waste dump built in Texas’ wide-open spaces. Texas got the right to exclude other states’ waste. But as a company prepares to begin construction this month on the state’s first one, the arrangement may be jeopardized by swiftly changing circumstances.

A private company that won a contract to operate the plant, at a site in Andrews on the New Mexico border, wants to accept waste from the 36 states that do not have access to a dump for some of their waste now. And a commission made up of representatives from the two states that controls the planned dump has proposed a rule for accomplishing that.

Waste disposal is so difficult, says the company, Waste Control Services, that power plants and other generating sources have reduced their volumes sharply. And Vermont and Texas together produce so little that, the company adds, it would have to charge huge amounts per cubic foot and per unit of radioactivity to get its investment back.

The prospect of losing space to waste from generators in other states worries the incoming governor of Vermont, Peter Shumlin, who has vowed to shut down that state’s reactor, Vermont Yankee. He fears that when it comes time to tear it down, there will not be enough space for its contaminated components in Texas if other plants can ship waste there first.

"It’s a race for space," said Mr. Shumlin, a Democrat. "When push comes to shove, the first waste that arrives is the waste that gets in."

Not everyone in Vermont agrees. The state has two seats on an eight-member bi-state commission that controls the dump, and its delegates, chosen by Mr. Shumlin’s predecessor, support the change in rules for imported waste. By law, they say, the compact allows states to charge nonmembers much higher rates.

The Texan chairman of the commission, Michael S. Ford, says Vermont has little to worry about. "The Compact Commission will vigorously protect the interests of our sole and loyal partner, Vermont, in the compact and assure that their disposal needs are well known and fully accounted for," he wrote in an e-mail.

But nuclear experts in Vermont suggest it would be wiser for the commission to postpone a decision on imports until it determines how much space Vermont Yankee’s waste will need.

Nuclear operators around the country are watching with interest. In Zion, Ill., north of Chicago, for example, a company called EnergySolutions is decommissioning a twin-unit reactor and plans to put the least radioactive material in its own dump, in Clive, Utah, but wants to ship slightly more contaminated material to Andrews.

The arrangement between Vermont and Texas was brokered under federal laws passed in the 1980s to encourage states to establish dumps for low-level waste. The laws allowed the forging of "low-level waste compacts," under which a state could select a future dumping site from which other states would be turned away. (Maine was initially also part of the compact with Vermont and Texas but dropped out.)

Mr. Shumlin said he saw the hand of Entergy, a company based in Louisiana that owns Vermont Yankee, in the proposal to expand the compact. The company owns 10 other reactors in six other states, none of them with access to a low-level waste dump, including the Indian Point reactors in New York.

He suggested that the backers of the proposed rule were rushing to get it in place before he takes office on Jan. 6 and gains the power to replace the Vermonters on the commission who favor the new rule.

The day after he was elected governor last month, the commission approved a draft rule and put it out for public comment. The comment period will end Dec. 26, and the commission could vote anytime after that.

Mr. Ford denied there was any last-minute scramble, saying that the commission had been working on the proposed rule since last year.

Of the six panel members from Texas, two are said to oppose allowing waste imports from additional states and four are said to favor it. With the Vermonters, that points to a 6-to-2 vote in favor of the new rule.

Mr. Shumlin said he would seek to appoint two commissioners who opposed changing the rule. That would lead to a 4-to-4 tie and prevent the passage of the rule.

For its part, Entergy, which recently put Vermont Yankee up for sale because the state has refused to let the company keep running it beyond 2012, said it agreed that Vermont’s access should be protected.

The dump, expected to cost $75 million, will be a concrete-lined hole in the ground set in nearly impermeable red clay, which is supposed to prevent the waste from contaminating underground water supplies.

"They’re trying to get it done before the new governor takes office," said Tom Smith, director of the Texas office of the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, which opposes the dump.

Asked whether Gov. Rick Perry of Texas had taken a position, a spokesman said he expected that the commission "will ultimately make a decision that is in the best interest of Texas."

Your presence is needed! A newly announced hearing will be held in Austin, December 9th – The time is yet to be determined.
Building E, Room 201
12100 Park 35 Circle
Austin, TX 78753
Map

• Read the proposed radioactive import rule here.
• Low Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact Commission Action Letter

Texas is at risk of becoming the nation’s radioactive dumping ground. Governor Perry knew that Texans don’t want to be dumped on, and kept this issue out of the spotlight during election season. Now that the elections are over and the winter holiday season is underway, the Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact Commission is rushing to approve rules that would open Andrews County in West Texas up to radioactive waste from around the country.

Loopholes abound when it comes to laws regarding radioactive waste. While excluding radioactive waste from international sources, the proposed rule doesn’t require processors to document the origin of waste that they handle. International radioactive waste could get re-labeled as Tennessee waste if it was processed there. Texas could become the international radioactive waste dumping ground as well.

None of this makes sense. The Andrews County dumpsite is geologically inadequate. Water is too close beneath the bottom of trenches where radioactive waste would be buried. All the TCEQ staff members unanimously recommended denying the license because of the high risk of radioactive contamination of water. Three TCEQ staff members have resigned over the licensing of the site.

Texas would bear increased financial and environmental risks. The legislature has not had time to weigh in on whether waste from around the country should be allowed in, or whether it should be limited to the Compact states of Texas and Vermont, as originally portrayed. They have not yet had a chance to address Texas’ financial liability or emergency preparedness, including the increased risks from highway or train accidents, or contamination at the site.

Who would benefit from an expanded radioactive waste dump? Harold Simmons, a Dallas billionaire and owner of Waste Control Specialists (WCS), would reap profits. Nuclear reactors owners would also benefit by having lower disposal rates, through a volume discount approach. The Andrews County Compact dump site is mainly for disposal of the four existing Texas reactors and the existing Vermont Yankee reactor, which may be decommissioned soon due to public outcry over tritium leaks and contamination.

Very hot radioactive weapons waste from Fernald, Ohio is already buried at an adjacent dump at the WCS site, and PCB’s and other toxic and hazardous materials are at another portion of the site. It’s time to protect Texas and halt the nuclear madness. Take action now!

Call your Texas Representative and Senator today and urge that the Compact Commission vote on the radioactive waste import rule be halted until the Legislature has had time to review financial and environmental risks, and hearings have been held in communities that would be impacted by increased radioactive waste transport shipments. To find out who represents you, go to www.fyi.legis.state.tx.us.

Nov. 23, 2010

By BETSY BLANEY
© 2010 The Associated Press

LUBBOCK, Texas — A state advisory commission is recommending that Texas lawmakers clarify the funding mechanism for a commission that oversees the disposal of low-level radioactive waste disposal in Texas.

The Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact Commission and its eight members — two from Vermont and six from Texas — are currently reimbursed for expenses through a contract with Texas’ environmental regulatory agency. The Sunset Advisory Commission said in a report released last week that Texas legislators need to instead establish a dedicated fund so the low-level compact panel has money to operate.

The compact commission is funded by its member states. Commission chairman Michael Ford said Tuesday that Vermont’s statute describes how money will flow to the entity.

"That facet of the (Texas) law is mute on the entire mechanism of funding," Ford said. "Right now the intent of the Legislature is not described on how that mechanism would occur, so we’re at a bit of a puzzle. The whole mechanism needs a lot of work."

In the early 1980s, the federal government started urging states to build low-level nuclear waste landfills, either on their own or in cooperation with other states in compact systems. Vermont, Texas and Maine formed a compact in 1993. Maine dropped out of the deal several years ago.

Earlier this month, the compact commission voted to publish rules that could be used to consider low-level waste from 36 other states that would be buried at a privately run facility in West Texas near the New Mexico border. There will be a 3-day comment period once the rule is published in the Texas Register, which should happen before the end of the month.

In the report released last week, the Sunset Advisory Commission recommended that revenue allocated by a yet-to-be-established waste disposal fee be sent to a newly created General Revenue Dedicated Account. The account would get only the portion of the fee allotted to cover the costs of the compact commission operations from the state’s licensed disposal facility, Waste Control Specialists.

Lawmakers could then appropriate funds from the account to the compact commission through the environmental agency’, the report states.

"Clearly the issue of the mechanism of funding the compact commission has to be clarified by the legislature," said Chuck McDonald, spokesman for Dallas-based Waste Control Specialists. "No one would dispute that."

The advisory commission’s report says the compact commission could have another problem if legislators don’t act in the upcoming session, the report states. If Waste Control Specialists were to give waste disposal fees directly to the commission, the panel potentially making decisions on importations of radioactive materials would hold its own purse strings, the report states.

"This situation puts the Compact Commission in the conflicting position of impacting total disposal volume of commercial low-level radioactive waste that directly affects its revenue source .," the report states.

If left as is, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality would still reimburse the compact commission, a move the reports says "inappropriately places" the TCEQ in the position of deciding what expenditures are suitable.

One commissioner isn’t so sure the Legislature, which is facing a budget shortfall that may reach $24 billion, will make the changes the advisory commission suggested.

"I can’t predict what the Legislature is going to do," Bob Wilson said. "I don’t know how this is going to work out. My judgment tells me that we are not going to have sufficient funding in the next two years to do what we need to do."

Design plans for construction of the compact’s disposal site have not yet been approved by environmental regulators.

Once the disposal facility accepts the low-level waste — worker clothing, glass, metal and other materials currently stored at nuclear power plants, hospitals, universities and research labs — Texas owns it and is liable for any possible future contamination after the facility closes.

Environmentalists are largely worried about toxins from the Texas site leaking into groundwater beneath the scrub brush land that’s brought oil prosperity to arid West Texas for nearly a century.

Waste Control Specialists contends it’ll be safe, and many local residents applaud any expansion as a way to bring more jobs and prosperity to the West Texas scrubland.

Wednesday, June 30, 2010

Dallas Morning News Editorial

Cracked asphalt provides a stark reminder of the nonexistent margin for error at a controversial radioactive waste dump in West Texas.

When state inspectors visited the site in Andrews County, they found cracks up to an inch wide in asphalt near canisters of radioactive material. While cracked asphalt is fairly inconsequential – and pretty much par for the course – when it comes to our city streets, it can be a dangerous proposition at a radioactive waste dump.

A spokesman for Dallas-based Waste Control Specialists, which operates the low-level radioactive waste site, dismissed the cracks as superficial and said they have been repaired. But as the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality has noted, that asphalt pad is an important safeguard against ground contamination.

The TCEQ is rightly seeking more information about the condition and history of the 10-acre asphalt pad. And that’s not the only cause for concern at the site. The TCEQ also plans to issue a notice of violation for storing a concrete canister filled with the hottest low-level radioactive material longer than allowed.

The Andrews County site has received six violation notices during the last six years, as significant questions about its proximity to an aquifer have swirled. The latest problems emerged amid a disconcerting push to significantly expand operations in Andrews County, potentially allowing 36 states to ship low-level waste to Texas.

Fortunately, members of the Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact Commission have tapped the brakes and are revamping the plan, which had appeared to be on the fast track for approval. It’s not clear, though, how soon the compact commission might act.

The cracked asphalt and the questionable canister point to crucial safety questions that must be answered before any expansion gets consideration. The rules that could open up the current Texas-Vermont disposal agreement and permit dozens of states to dump waste in Andrews County don’t merely need to be tweaked; they should be tabled until officials are sure that every precaution has been taken to protect Texas and its residents.

So far, that hasn’t happened.

The argument for extreme caution in Andrews County should not be mistaken for a not-in-my-back-yard reflex or a broader opposition to nuclear energy. It’s simply recognition of the high stakes associated with radioactive waste disposal.

Last month, 15 Texas legislators wrote to the compact commission, urging members not to adopt the rules allowing expansion at the site right now. They underscored significant liability issues, concerns about health and safety, as well as the potential fiscal impact a leak could have.

As the lawmakers note, key questions about preparedness, precautions and due diligence have not yet been answered. At least for now, Texas is not sufficiently equipped to become much of the nation’s radioactive dumping ground.