Archive for the ‘WCS’ Category

Saturday, November 5, 2016

By Trevor Hawes
The Midland Reporter

Photo: Waste Control Specialists

A quartet of environmental groups last month wrote the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission in an attempt to sway the agency to dismiss Waste Control Specialists’ pursuit of temporarily storing high-level nuclear waste in Andrews County,

A quartet of environmental groups last month wrote the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission in an attempt to sway the agency to dismiss Waste Control Specialists’ pursuit of temporarily storing high-level nuclear waste in Andrews County, where it currently has a facility to permanently store low-level nuclear waste, according to a recent Houston Chronicle report.

The request came on the heels of the NRC’s decision to move forward with an environmental impact study for the proposed site despite not having fully reviewed WCS’ license application. These are years-long processes that company publicist Chuck McDonald said are not unheard of to be conducted simultaneously.

"It’s going to take years for the license application to work its way through the system, and it’s going to take multiple years for the EIS process to play out. Both give the public many opportunities to participate," he said. "The sooner we start the public participation, the better."

He said it also makes sense for the NRC to allow an environmental impact study during the application review because the commission won’t grant licensure unless an environmental impact study is passed; thus, the application itself requires the study.

Environmental groups, such as Public Citizen and Sierra Club, say Congress never approved of a private company storing high-level nuclear waste despite Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz’s testimony before Congress in September that the Department of Energy believes it can do so without congressional action.

The DOE in October issued a request for information from interested private entities. WCS and its competitor, Holtec, which is pursuing high-level nuclear waste storage in New Mexico across the state line from WCS’ facility, are expected to respond to the DOE’s request.

McDonald said the funding source might require Congress’ approval and cited two ways the DOE could pay for interim storage while the government finds a place for permanent geologic storage, which could take up to 40 years. One source comes from electric bill surcharges collected for waste disposal. This fund is at $40 billion, but there could be a catch.

"Congress originally stipulated that that fund could only be used for disposal, not interim storage," McDonald said.

The second source is through the $500 million taxpayers pay per year to utility companies after the utilities sued the DOE for failing to take high-level nuclear waste, which the agency is required by law to do.

"The DOE is saying it makes more sense to use that settlement money for funding storage because it’s coming from taxpayers’ pockets," McDonald said.
He said WCS is optimistic that its Andrews facility will ultimately be granted a contract for interim high-level nuclear waste storage despite federal projects like this moving "at glacial speed."

"We have two things going for us that no one else in the country can say," he said. "First, we have an operating low-level radioactive waste disposal facility with experienced employees that do this every day. The process for interim high-level nuclear waste storage is very similar.

"Second, we have a community that is very supportive of this and understands it after 20 years and has passed a resolution of support because they know this material can be handled safely and in an environmentally appropriate fashion, and it can be a source of revenue for the county. They’re willing to entertain other radioactive waste storage options. Not many places in the U.S. can bring that to the table for the federal government, and Andrews County is unique in that aspect."

McDonald said in a Reporter-Telegram report this summer that WCS is pursing interim storage of high-level nuclear waste because there is a growing need to store the waste safely in one place while the federal government decides where to store it permanently. The DOE is required by law to take waste from utilities, but it has failed to do so. The waste from fully decommissioned nuclear power plants is scattered across the nation, and the stockpiles are growing as more nuclear plants reach the end of their useful lives, about 40 years.

Last month, the Fort Calhoun plant in Kansas shut down. Seven more are expected to cease operations through 2025, according to the Energy Information Administration. In the next 25 years, McDonald said between 50 and 60 plants would come offline — all of them without a place to permanently store waste after the Obama administration ended pursuit of Yucca Mountain in Nevada as the waste’s home.

"They say if they restarted Yucca Mountain tomorrow, it would be about 25 years before they were ready to do permanent disposal there," McDonald said, adding that it’s best to move waste to a centralized location for safety and to give the space formerly occupied by nuclear plants back to communities.

Finding a home for nuclear waste nationally is the same process Texas had to go through, McDonald said.

"The state had an obligation to take waste from low-level radioactive waste generators. The state was unable to site a facility, so it passed legislation to contract with a private entity to meet its obligation. That’s the genesis for everything that’s WCS."

As for the environmental groups that want NRC to end WCS’ application process, "there’s a little bit of irony in the noise from those groups because they’re the ones who demand an opportunity to participate, but they are protesting the fact that this participation process has now begun," he said.

Like Trevor on Facebook and follow him on Twitter at @HowdyHawes.

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.

Dec 01, 2014

By: Julia Deng
NewsWest 9

Listen to news story on NewsWest 9’s site

ANDREWS – Legislators, nuclear waste specialists and more than 400 Andrews County residents gathered Monday night to discuss the possibility of storing high-level nuclear waste at a facility approximately 25 miles west of Downtown Andrews.

Waste Control Specialists (WCS) operates the radioactive waste site and is responsible for the low-level nuclear material already being treated, stored and disposed of in Andrews County.

"Fees for low-level waste have produced about $3 million for Andrews County over the last year," said Rod Baltzer, President of WCS.

"For low-level waste, Andrews County gets five percent of our gross revenue for everything we dispose of."

He estimated high-level nuclear waste storage, if approved by community members and legislators, would generate $10 million annually.
Low-level nuclear waste consists primarily of contaminated clothing, work gloves and other site equipment, while high-level nuclear waste would be spent nuclear fuel rods.

The rods, or "fuel pins," are long metal tubes that uranium oxide pellets or other uranium-based materials are sealed into before being placed in a nuclear reactor.

Safe treatment and storage of the spent rods would occur in 60- to 100-year cycles at the Andrews facility.

"If Andrews County and the community does not want this, it will not happen," said Baltzer.

Community concerns include "radioactive exposure, accidents and things like that," according to Senator Kel Seliger, who oversaw much of the legislation for WCS’s low-level nuclear waste storage.

County-wide benefits, on the other hand, would include "cash flow and more jobs," he said.

Sen. Seliger encouraged community members at Monday night’s meeting to "think carefully about all those factors" because the "decision will be made by [them]."

WCS officials said they have not filed licensing applications or taken other legislative action yet, and do not plan to do so until evaluating community reaction.

The licensing process, expected to take three to five years, would be followed by at least another year of construction and facility preparation.

High-level nuclear waste would not be transported to Andrews County until 2020 at the earliest.

"We will have open forums for community members to voice their opinions before we go ahead [with this storage proposal]," said Baltzer.

"Anybody with questions or concerns can also submit them on our website, WCSTexas.com."