By Cyrus Reed
The focal point for the decades-long debate on where to put all the nation’s radioactive waste may soon shift to West Texas. There is a facility already storing and disposing certain types of low-level radioactive waste in Andrews County, but it may soon be allowed to accept more and different kinds of radioactive waste. In addition, officials in Loving County are pressing for a high-level radioactive waste dump intended to be temporary storage until the federal government – at long last – selects and finalizes a permanent waste depository.
While some local citizens see one or both waste sites as economic opportunities that may increase tax base and bring in jobs, others remain concerned about the potential long-term risks to human safety, health, and the environment of storing nuclear waste. But are those risks ever going to be seriously addressed and examined by authorities? The current disposition of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) toward these types of concerns makes me think no.
Approval of more low-level waste eminent
As owners of the low-level radioactive waste repository in Andrews County, Waste Control Specialists (WCS) is asking this week to receive approval from the TCEQ to dispose (bury) more waste than it is currently authorized to store, from 2.31 million to 9 million cubic feet. Other proposed amendments to its original license include allowing the company to dispose depleted uranium (DU), and to decrease the amount of money the company needs to assure the state it can cover the costs of closing the site in the future and take corrective action if needed.
The Sierra Club submitted comments on these amendments to the WCS license in May 2014, as did State Representative Lon Burnam, Public Citizen, SEED Coalition, South Texas Association for Responsible Energy, Texas Campaign for the Environment, Energia Mia, and Environment Texas. The comments opposed the addition of DU to the list of waste the company can receive, opposed the expansion to 9 million cubic feet with a plan to simply put them deeper – closer to water-bearing zones – and allow the Executive Director to make changes in waste streams accepted at the site with no formal amendment process that allows for public input or opposition. We also said, at the very least, TCEQ should schedule a public hearing to get further input and explain the rationale for these major changes.
Photo: Dept. of Energy
In its response, rather than examining and factoring in these concerns about the proposed amendments, the TCEQ essentially dismissed them. In layman’s terms, what we heard was “don’t worry about it,” “it’s not our call,” or “we’ll be watching.” Sadly, there will not be a public meeting on this WCS application because the TCEQ Executive Director deemed there was not enough public interest in it.
This Wednesday at 9:30am, the TCEQ Commissioners are scheduled to consider and approve this dangerous amendment.
Yet another push for changing what was agreed to
Fast forward to late July. WCS filed another request to dispose more types of radioactive waste that are beyond the original types the Texas Legislature authorized them to store. Specifically, it is a petition for a new rulemaking that would clear a path to allow its facilities to store radioactive waste greater than “Class C” (which is more radioactive than waste it is currently authorized to dispose), as well as permanently storing or disposing transuranic waste. Transuranic waste is the really “heavy” radioactive stuff that until recently was going to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP site) in New Mexico. Following a series of unfortunate events, WIPP is temporarily closed, and some transuranic waste has already come to Texas for “interim” storage.
Image: Dept. of Energy
As a June 2014 Dallas Morning News editorial noted, the WCS site is “steadily morphing away from its original mission as a depository for very limited quantities of low-level radioactive items from Texas and Vermont.” This latest attempt by WCS to add more categories of radioactive waste to its facility goes beyond the specific authorization granted to them by the Texas Legislature. Authorization to dispose greater than Class C waste, depleted uranium or transuranic waste was neither contemplated nor authorized. This represents a pattern of deception by WCS where their true intentions belie what they originally told the Legislature. What originally was authorized is being methodically transformed to make Andrews County one of the radioactive dumping grounds for the United States.
Though there is little chance the earlier license amendments will get more public scrutiny, there is an opportunity for stakeholders to weigh in on this proposal, and the Sierra Club will be filing comments against this precipitous petition should it be granted a rulemaking. However, with a long track record of asking for more and getting more from the TCEQ, state legislators might be asking themselves if this relationship needs reexamining when the 84th session convenes in January. The Dallas Morning News editorial said it best, “Texans deserve to be part of this important discussion. But they can’t participate if they don’t even know it’s happening.”
High-level waste finds a home in Texas?
Meanwhile, some residents of nearby Loving County are hoping their home will become the temporary storage (above ground) site of much of the country’s high-level radioactive waste, which has been piling up at nuclear power plant sites for decades.
In a recent New York Times story, Loving County officials expressed support for a temporary high-level radioactive waste storage facility in their rural county. Energy reporter Matthew Wald painted a vivid portrait of the area’s residents (video), highlighting often heard sentiments about perceived economic boosts that would come from an infusion of federal dollars to support construction and maintenance of a proposed facility, as well as concerns about the inherent risks of nuclear waste.
The Lone Star Chapter believes it is premature for some counties in Texas to "site" a high-level interim repository for high-level radioactive waste. Locating, permitting and financing a high-level waste site will require federal oversight and Congressional action now that the Yucca Mountain option appears to be off of the table. The Sierra Club is opposed to opening up an interim "solution" by an individual state because of the risk and cost of additional transportation and potential long-term environmental threats. Due to the chronic issues involved in finding a viable storage site, whatever location is pegged as an interim site stands a good chance at becoming a de facto permanent site, wiping away any “move by” date communities might think the waste will have. This is a sentiment current nuclear power plants probably share, as the Federal government promised to find a permanent repository by the mid 1990s and they’re still waiting.
While it is unappealing to the current nuclear fleet, there is still space at existing nuclear plants to temporarily house high-level waste while the U.S. finds a permanent home for its high-level radioactive waste.
Ultimately, the country must continue to move toward greater use of renewable energy, such as wind and solar, energy storage, as well as energy efficiency and demand response to meet our energy needs as we lower and ultimately phase out our use of nuclear power.
We can make a difference, but we must speak up!
Though the responsiveness of the TCEQ to legitimate concerns about radioactive waste storage and disposal has been miserable, the power to change it resides with the public.
Now is the time to take more direct action. Contact your legislator and let them know you want greater scrutiny paid to these issues before West Texas turns into the nation's nuclear dumping ground. Tell TCEQ not to approve the rulemaking proposed by WCS. Tell the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that any major change to our nation's disposal of high-level waste must include federal legislation and an Environmental Impact Statement.
Stay tuned for more.