Archive for the ‘WCS’ Category

December 7,2010

By MATTHEW L. WALD
New York Times

The federal aid now in place for new nuclear plants is far from sufficient for the so-called "nuclear renaissance" that backers are seeking, a panel made up of members of Congress, high-ranking federal officials and leaders of major nuclear companies agreed on Tuesday.

Ground has been broken on only two new nuclear plants with a total of four reactors, and some companies have withdrawn their applications for licenses to build. "We can’t make the numbers work," said Chip Pardee, chief nuclear officer of Exelon, the nation’s largest operator of civilian nuclear reactors, who sat on a panel of 25 at a conference organized by the Idaho National Laboratory of the Energy Department and a private group called the Third Way.

Read more at the New York Times web site….

December 10, 2010

Media Release – For Immediate Release
Download this press release in pdf format for printing.

Contacts: Karen Hadden, Executive Director, SEED Coalition, 512-797-8481
Tom "Smitty" Smith, Director of Public Citizen’s Texas office, 512-637-9455

Austin, TX The only hearing on a proposed radioactive waste rule that would open Texas up to becoming the nation’s radioactive waste dumping ground was held yesterday in Austin. The rule would let waste from around the country go to Waste Control Specialists’ Andrews County site in West Texas instead of limiting waste to the Compact states of Texas and Vermont.

The Import Rule 30-day public comment period ends Dec. 26th so comments can still be sent to rule.comment@tllrwdcc.org.

A videotape of the Dec. 9th hearing will be online at http://www.texasadmin.com/tceqs.shtml and more information is available at www.NukeFreeTexas.org.

Speakers requested:

• a comment period extension

• that the vote be postponed until the legislature can examine Texas’ financial risks and ability to respond to accidents or contamination.

• that hearings be held in all major Texas cities since radioactive waste could travel down highways throughout the state and

• that Compact Commissioners to vote no to bringing in more radioactive waste.

"Many people are concerned that more radioactive waste means increased financial, health, environmental and security risks," said SEED Coalition Director Karen Hadden “They spoke of broken promises, environmental justice, protecting the land they love and preventing radioactive contamination of water. Some questioned whether anything prevents contamination of the Ogallala Aquifer that lies beneath eight states in the breadbasket region of the nation.”

Speakers included Craig Adair from Rep. Lon Burnam’s office, who brought a letter signed by fifteen House members. Farmers, ranchers, academics, scientists, artists, environmentalists and health advocates participated, coming from as far away as Dallas and Houston. One woman spoke on behalf of farming families in West Texas. Participants represented the League of Women Voters of Texas, NAACP, Texans for Public Justice, Environment Texas, Austin Center for Peace and Justice, SEED Coalition, Public Citizen, Lone Star Sierra Club, and Save Our Springs.

Nuclear reactor vessels, "poison curtains" that absorb reactor core radioactivity, and radioactive sludges and resins could all be sent to the West Texas site. No radionuclide would be excluded. Exposure to radioactive materials can cause cancer, birth defects, reduced immunity and even death, depending on the type of radioactive material and the level of exposure.

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.