ML21229A113
| ML21229A113 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/17/2021 |
| From: | NRC/OCIO |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML21229A111 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA, NRC-2019-000100 | |
| Download: ML21229A113 (12) | |
Text
From: Kennedy, James Sent: 30 Mar 2012 08:34:16 -0400 To: Cochran, John R;Ridge, Christianne;Lowman, Donald;McKenney, Christepher;Suber, Gregory;Heath, Maurice;White, Duncan
Subject:
FW: LLW Forum Memo: SEED Comment s t o t he Texas Compact Commission Attachments: SEEDComments3-19-12.doc Attached is a letter from an environmental group in Texas raising concerns about Texas' and WCS' oversight and inspection of shipments to the disposal facility. This was an issue that Susan Jablonski raised in her comments on the BTP and that we're addressing in our responses. It is not just Susan that's concerned, but others as well.
From: Llwforuminc@aol.com [1]
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2012 11:40 AM To: Llwforuminc@aol.com
Subject:
LLW Forum Memo: SEED Comments to the Texas Compact Commission To: Members and Supporters of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Forum, Inc.
From: Todd D. Lovinger, Esq.
Executive Director of the LLW Forum, Inc.
Date: March 22, 2012 Re: SEED Comments to the Texas Compact Commission Attached, for your information and convenience, please find the comments that SEED Coalition and others jointly submitted to the Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Compact Commission regarding the Import Rule amendment that is being considered at today's meeting.
A Senate "Real Media" Live Broadcast of the meeting can be found at the following web page:
http://www.senate.state.tx.us/binllive.php.
The agenda for the meeting is available on http://tllrwdcc.org.
For additional information, please contact Roberl Wilson, Chairman of the Commission, at (512) 820-2930 or at bob.wilson@tllrwdcc.org.
c.\e:an t1i1 t~ ~~**~ * \ Sustainable Energy & Economic Development Coalition
' ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3 S-on-A-nt-on-lo-S-~ S-u-lte-1-00-, -Au-st-ln,- ~- 7-8-7~- .- 5-12-.7-9 7-. ~
- 5-12-.6-37-.9-~ 1
\c.,, <-/
..:~d
......~~ \'\,o Karen@ seedcoalition.org
- www.sccdcoalitim.q-g
- www.rcncwmblctacas.org March 19, 2012 Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact Commission Re: Rule 675.23 Importation of Waste from a Non-Compact Generator for Disposal, 31 TAC §§675.23 proposed by the Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact Commission, with changes as published in the Texas Register on January 20, 2012 (37 Tex. Reg. 184)
Dear Compact Commissioners,
The Sustainable Energy and Economic Development (SEED) Coalition is a Texas-based nonprofit organization advocating for sustainable economic development and clean, affordable energy solutions. We appreciate this opportunity to provide comments on the Waste Importation Rule.
We look forward to the time when the Compact Commission has staff, because it has been difficult to submit these comments without having any information posted at the usual site - www.tll twdcc.org. It is premature for the Commission to approve a rule to move forward with waste importation without basic administrative structure in place.
We have support and endorsement for these comments from major environmental organizations. Some are national organizations and others are based in Texas, New Mexico, and California. These comments are made on behalf of all of the organizations signed on below and all signers request written response from the Commission.
Our organizations have several concerns with proposed rule and are recommending severa l changes for the reasons set forth below in these comments.
We are attaching several related articles that help illustrate why we are concerned.
Our organizations oppose Compact Commission approval of the proposed rule until these concerns can be fully addressed.
Improved Oversight is Needed It is an improvement to acknowledge in the agreement forms that audits can occur.
However, the rule does not include provisions for random audits at the site, as it should.
We recommend that the following language be included in the rule:
Random checks at the low-level radioactive waste site of 5% or more of shipments shall be made by a n inde pe nde nt a uditor, contracted by the Compact Commission of Non-Compact
waste shipments. (We believe this should also occur for Compact shipments, although the requirement may need to be addressed somewhere other than in this particular rule.)
Increased auditing may be requested by the Commission if desired, and shall be conducted in accordance with standards set by the Texas State Auditor's Office.
Oversight shall include, but not be limited to, financial accounting, checking the volume, curies and composition of the waste coming in to the site, analysis of whether proper handling and procedures are used, whether there is proper packaging and inspection before disposal, whether waste goes into the proper disposal location, and whether paperwork is accurate and fully complete, as well as analysis of quarterly updates regarding environmental impacts, well-monitoring data and adequacy of Compact Facility operator reporting.
Why Are Audits Essential?
The importance of thorough and detailed recordkeeping, transparency and random independent audits for the WCS radioactive waste facility cannot be overstated. The state of Texas will inherit the radioactive waste site and related financial and/or environmental liabilities. It is clearly in the public's best interest to prevent problems through a cautious and careful approach and the Compact Commission should require random independent audits in order to do so.
The State of Texas and Andrews County will receive revenues based on the amounts and kinds of waste disposed of at the WCS site, so it is clearly in the financial interests of both the state and the county to have the assurance of independent third-party oversight.
The environmental risks of importing radioactive wast,e are huge. Even though the WCS site is called a "low-level" radioactive waste facility, there is no single radionuclide that cannot be disposed of there. While some radioactive waste remains dangerous for short periods of time, some radionuclides are very long-lived. Some examples are Plutonium 239 with a half of 24,200 years, Uranium-234 with a half-life of 245,500 years, Uranium-235 with a half-life of 700 million years and Uranium-238 with a half-life of 4.5 billion years.
The record of two other U.S. low-level radioactive waste facil ities, Barnwell in South Carolina and Hanford in Washington, demonstrates the need for enhanced auditing.
There have been massive operating irregularities and reporting falsifications.
On at least three occasions spent nuclear fuel rods were illegally disposed of by shipping the rods to low-level waste storage facilities, which are not licensed to receive them. These fuel rods, which contain uranium and plutonium, are only legally allowed to go to a high-level radioactive waste facil ity and there are serious health risks to workers if attempts are later made to exhume them. The nuclear fuel rods were shipped from the Pilgrim and Millstone reactors and from Vermont Yankee, which w ill also be shipping waste to Andrews County. Vague paperwork concealed 26 shipments from Pilgrim to B arnwell over the 1977 - 78 timeframe, and burial of the fuel rods was only exposed by a whistleblower.
There was oversight in place when the fuel rods were buried, but was it enough?
2
"The Barnwell Disposal Facility has operated under a license issued by the Department (South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control) since the beginning of disposal activities in 197 1. Regulatory oversight of the faci lity by the Department includes: 1) having a full-time trained Health Physicist on site to inspect 100% of the shipments received by Chem-Nuclear; 2) conducting detailed weekly inspections of site conditions; 3) splitting quarterly surface water, well water and soil samples collected by Chem-Nuclear for independent analysis; 4) conducting comprehensive, unannounced semi-annual inspections that typically involve 6 DHEC staff over a week's time; 5) reviewing and approving all trench construction activities before they can be utilized for disposal; and 6) reviewing all special waste and higher activity Class C waste shiipments received by the facility." '
According to an Energy Solutions representative, Barnwell customers can send quality assurance teams in to alLdit anything and everything and have done so through NUPIC.
However, despite these oversight processes, spent nuclear fuel rods were sent to Barnwell and disposed of there.
What Will Prevent the Burial of Fuel Rods or Other Illegal Materials at the Texas Site?
What would happen if spent fuel rods inadvertently got buried at the WCS site? Would records accurately reflect wh ich shipments and containers were involved and where exactly the rods were buried? Would WCS be able to retrieve and remove waste that is not legally permitted at the site? What, if any, guidelines would be used? What engineering methods are available at the WCS site for exhumation? What mechanisms are in place to prevent such an occurrence from happening in Texas?
Until these questions are fully addressed the Compact Commission should not approve the amended import rules. More detailed records, including application agreement forms, and random spot checks of shipments and procedures could prove to be invaluable in preventing such problems and the rules currently under consideration should be amended to include such provisions.
Serious envirnnmental contamination problems have occurred at many existing low-level rad ioactive waste faci lities and clean up costs will nm into the billions of dollars.
This must be prevented i.n Texas, but there is little to reassure the public that things will be any different at this site than at others.
WCS has already been allowed by TCEQ to use stock from a sister company, Titanium Metals, for financial assurance, instead of bonds or cash, as originally planned. This does not speak well for TCEQ's ability to regulate WCS or enforce requirements related 1 2007 statement by Michael Moore, South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, http://www.scdhec.gov/environrnent/chem_nuclear/H3545-Comments-20070320.htln 3
to the company. Neither does it bode well for the future - environmentally or financially.
The potential for contamination of aquifers, now or in the future, is an important concern.
In fact, TCEQ staff recommended against issuing the WCS license due to water contamination risks. If packaging is inadequate or proper inspections do not occur, the risks of contamination are likely to increase.
- There have already been problems with inadequate inspections of waste containers by WCS personnel, as documented in files of the Byproduct Waste Facility, which is also located at the WCS site and which contains highly radioactive weapons waste from Fernald, Ohio. Unofficial accounts claim that other waste, which was not authorized for disposal t here, was illegally buried at this WCS site.
- Although the TCEQ took note of the problems with the inspection of waste containers, nothing was done to improve or change the situation. A third party audit may have h elped draw attention to the problem and led to action to correct the deficiencies in procedures and packaging.
- High levels of water in monitoring wells at the Compact Waste site made it necessary fo r WCS to reconfigure the shape of the Compact facility. This was done through a minor amendment during the w inter holiday season in 2011. There were only 10 days for citizen comment on this amendment and no opportunity for a contested case h earing, which would have been an opportunity for experts to examine whether the changes were adequate to prevent groundwater contamination.
- TCEQ did not require a full hearing, although it was warranted. The agency needs to toughen up oversight of WCS. They also granted additional time for the radioactive Studsvik waste to remain at the WCS site, despite having exceeded permitted time limitations. Having additional oversight by an independent third party may help give them the backing they need to strengthen their regulation of wcs.
Limitations on Radioactive Waste Must Be Ensured, Additional Oversight Needed on This Front It is essential that WCS' licensed volumes and curie lim its not be exceeded and that capacity be reserved for Texas and Vermont nuclear waste, in accordance with recent Texas legislation. Vermont has already seen a reduction in the space allotted to the state through legislative measures, although there has been no fi nancial adjustment to compensate for them for the reduction.
In order to ensure adequate capacity, proper procedure and environmental protection and proper financial accounting, the Sustainable Energy and Economic Development (SEED)
Coalition again recommends that an independent third-party audit system be set in place
- before non-party waste agreements are signed and before any non-party waste shipments occur.
Several different auditors may be needed since various areas of expertise may be required.
Ultimately, the Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact Commission will be responsible for decisions that could have major environmental and financial impacts on 4
Texas and Vermont, and ,e xperts are needed to assist in keeping Commissioners fully apprised of safety and economic concerns.
Import Application Disclosure Requirements Must be Strengthened It is also crucial that more detailed information be required on the proposed form for the Application for Importation of Non-party Low-Level Radioactive Waste. At minimum, all radionuclides to be imported should be listed, along with their volume, curies and half-lives. There has been some reluctance to require this complete listing since the actual volumes and curies may change from the application when the shipment is made, but that could easily be addressed and accounted for by accu rate reporting on the tail end that details exactly what was actually sent.
The bigger problem may lie in the fact that the generators/ shippers don't actually know what is in the material they are shipping, in which case they should absolutely not be allowed to send the radioactive material to Texas until they can accurately account for all radionuclides present and in what amounts and curie levels. The time and energy to put the information down on an application form is negligible. If the generators can't do this, they have no business sending their waste to us. There is clearly enough money flowing in the radioactive waste business to cover the costs of putting key information down on an application form.
The excuses for not providing information regarding all radionuclides being shipped, their curies and half-lives, are lame and should not be tolerated by Compact Commissioners. More information must be required in this rule for inclusion on the Application Form. This must be done on the front end in order to prevent huge problems later in identifying materials if there is a spill during transport or disposal, if containers break open or if there is radioactive leak at the s ite. The public also needs this information in order to be able to comment effectively as Import Agreements are addressed at the Compact Commission. While it is an improvement in the rule that some radionuclide disclosures are to be required, why not all of them? The import rule is simply not protective of public health and safety without this requirement, and certainly does not provide adequate public information.
It will be difficult, if not impossible, to prevent down blending of wastes and misclassification to a lesser category without full information. Underestimation and "averaging" of wastes is a risk that could impact the State of Texas financially, cut into the capacity reserved for Texas' and Vermont's nuclear reactor waste and undercut the revenues due to Texas and Andrews County.
International Waste While the proposed rule does restrict impo1tation of international waste, there is lack of clarity regarding how this importation will be prevented at the processor sites.
Furthermore, the rule is silent on the ability of the Commission to authorize the import of radioactive waste generated on military bases outside of the United States. Likewise, there should be language that clarifies that international waste remains designated as waste of international origin if it is sent to any U.S. military base or DOE site. How will tracking and recordkeep ing occur? Are there any mies pertaining to ports that would 5
allow the source address to change? These issues should be worked out and language should be included in the Import Rule before it is voted upon by the Commission.
Major Environmental Rule and Environmental Impact Analysis Our organizations assert that the proposed rule should be considered a Major Environmental Rule, under Section 2001.0225 of the Texas Government Code, and the necessa1y regulatory analysis associated with a Major Environmental Rule should be required.2 Approving this rule would be putting forth a Major Environmental Rule without the required impact analysis. The SEED Coalition relies on Section 2 of Dr.
Aljun Makhijani's expert ana lysis, which is attached here and was previously subm itted to the Commission on January 15, 2010.2 Additionally, under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4322, there is a requirement for an environmental impact statement (EIS) before this rule can go forward. The rule could sig nificantly affect the quality of the environment. 3 For the same reasons that the proposed rule should be considered a Major Environmental Rule under Texas law, an EIS should be required under NEPA.
We also rely on the attached Nuclear Information and Resource Service Report detailing the problems and leaks at many of the other low-level radioactive waste disposal facilities around the country. This report further illustrates why an EIS should be conducted and the proposed rule should be considered a Major Environmental Rule.
Consideration of Texas Liability Texas will take title and liability to the radioactive waste to be disposed of at the Compact facility once it enters the state and will be responsible for cleanup costs if and when the site leaks or if there are accidents in transport within the state. The rule should discuss the increased liabilities that the importation of radioactive waste would create for Texas taxpayers, who wi ll ultimately face the financ ia l and environmental burden of radioactive waste lasting thousands of years.
The Compact Commi ssion should conduct a thorough independent analysis of the increased liability resulting from impo11 before approving the proposed rule.
Transportation routes should be determined in coordination with appropriate agencies, including The results should be reported to the public and incorporated into the rule.
The radioactive waste at the Compact facility will remain lethal for tens of thousands of years, and the potential clean-up costs to the state of Texas could be exceptionally high.
3 Scienlisls' Inslitutefor Public b1forma1ion, Inc. v. Alomic Energy Commission, 481 F.2d 1079, 1088 (C.A.D.C. 1973). "The statutory phrase "actions significantly affecting the quality of the environment" is intentionally broad, reflecting the Act's attempt to promote an across-the-board adjustment in federal agency decision making so as to make the quality of the environment a concern of every federal agency." And "The legislative history of the Act indicates that the term "actions" refers not only to construction of particular facilities, but includes " project proposals, proposals for new legislation, regulations, policy statements, or expansion or revision of ongoing programs" (emphasis added) 6
The SEED Coalition asserts that the fiscal note for the proposed mle should be drafted to reflect the actual timeline of potential costs to the state, well beyond the 5 years required by law (Sec. 2001.024, Texas Government Code).
We also rely on the attached Nuclear Information and Resource Service Report detailing the problems and leaks at many of the other low-level radioactive waste disposal faci lities around the country. This report illustrates the potential costs and liabilities that could result from approval of the proposed rule.
Transportation Assessment and Requirements Although there should be, there are no provisions whatsoever in the rule governing the transport of radioactive waste which would come in on trucks and trains through Texas communities. If an accident occurs, state and local governments would be responsible for emergency response and taking actions to protect the public health and safety. The Compact Commission could be considered liable for allowing shipments of radioactive waste to take place without adequate safeguards in place.
An AP article published in the Fort Worth Star Telegram on March 19, 2012, reports:
"There is no requirement to notify law enforcement officials along routes trucks will travel with the low-level waste, said Chris Van Deusen, spokesman for the Texas Department of State Health Services, which oversees the transportation of the waste."
If this is accurate, then notification requirements need to be put in place immediately, well ahead of any shipments of radioactive waste to the WCS site in Texas.
The Compact Commission should conduct an independent and comprehensive transportation safety and impact study before approving the proposed rule. Transport routes should be identified. The results should be reported to emergency responders and the public and be incorporated into the rule.
The Compact Commission should verify that municipalities along radioactive waste transportation routes have first responders trained to deal with radioactive waste accidents and that they have the proper equipment to do so. The rule should also include notification strategies and a requirement to notify emergency service providers 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> in advance of impot1 and export shipments so that they can be prepared and have proper equipment available in case they need to respond to a train or truck accident during the transport of radioactive waste.
The Compact Commission also needs to detail in the rule how it is going to notify and coordinate with the Texas Department of State Health Services, Department of Energy, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Department of Transportation regarding the transportation of radioactive waste. The rule should also specify how the Commission which regulations apply and how compliance will occur with all state and federal regulations governing transportation of radioactive waste.
7
Additionally, a written side by side comparison of the manifest of the waste from its point of origin to the waste that arrives at the WCS site should be required in this rule to ensure that all waste that was sent reaches its destination. Previously, a truck with a waste shipment to the site disappeared along the way and its whereabouts were unknown for about a month.
Public Participation Process The comment period in the rule has been improved somewhat recently but should be extended by another 15 days to best allow for adequate public participation. It takes time to gather information, consult with experts and prepare meaningful testimony. This testimony may turn out to be very important to the Compact Commission, since there is no staff yet, and the public has essentially been providing the Commission with much information that is not be ing provided by other means.
We ask that you respond in writing to these comments to the SEED Coalition and all of those signed on below. We ask that you delay consideration of the import rule until the Commission can responsibly deal with essential legal, technical and practical administrative responsibilities and until the Commission can incorporate the essential recommendations to the rule that we have provided here.
Sincerely, Karen Hadden, Executive Director Sustainable Energy & Economic Development (SEED) Coalition 1303 San Antonio, Suite 100 Austin, Texas 78701 karen@seedcoalition.org These comments are supported and endorsed by the undersigned individuals and organizations as well, who would appreciate a written reply if possible.
Representative Lon Burnam District 90 - Fort Worth P.O. Box 2910 Austin, Texas 78768-2910 Dr. Lisa Doggett, MD - Austin Physicians for Social Responsibility UT Family Wellness Center 2901 N. 135, Suite 101 Austin, Texas 78722 Trish O'Day, MSN, RN, CNS - Austin Physicians for Social Responsibility 8
University of Texas at Austin, School of Nursing 1700 Red River Street Austin, TX 78701-1499 Dr. Elliot J. Trester, MD Austin Physicians for Social Responsibility 801 West 34th Street, Su ite 102 Austin, Texas 78705 Yannis Banks Texas NAACP 7901 Cameron Rd. Bldg. 2, Suite 350 Austin, Texas 78754 Tom "Smitty" Smith, Director Public Citizen's Texas Office 1303 San Antonio Austin, Texas 78701 Diane D'Arrigo, Radioactive Waste Project Director Nuclear Information and Resource Service 6930 Carroll Ave, Suite 340 Takoma Park, MD 20912 Peggy and Melodye Pryor 1420 NW 12th St.
Andrews, Texas 79714 Rose Gardner, Director Tex/New Mex Radioactive Rangers PO Box 514 Eunice, New Mexico 88231 Luke Metzger, Director Environment Texas 815 Brazos, Suite 600 Austin, Texas 78701 Gary Stuard, Founder/Executive Director Interfaith Environmental Alliance (IEA) 6344 Goliad Ave.
Dallas, Texas 75214 Tammy Cromer-Campbell, Director WE CAN - Working Effectively for C lean Air Now!
207 N . Center St.
9
Longview, TX 75601 Diana Lopez, Environmental Justice Organizer Southwest Workers Union PO Box 830706 San Antonio, TX, 78283 Graciela I. Sanchez, Director Esperanza Peace and Justice Center 922 San Pedro Ave.
San Antonio, TX 782 12 Susan Dancer, Chair South Texas Association for Responsible Energy (ST ARE)
PO Box 209 Blessing, Texas 79924 Nita O'Neal, Chair True Cost of Nukes 1008 E. Enon Avenue Evennan, Texas 76140 Jessica Ellison 2222 Thrasher Lane, Unit B Austin, Texas 78741 David N. Smith Law Office of David N. Smith P.O. Box 537 Austin, Texas 78767 Marion Mlotok 3057 Sendero Dr.
Austin, Texas 78735 Maria Antonietta Berriozabal 1148 W. Russsell Place San Antonio, Texas 7820 I Mavis Belisle 8418 Hobart Dallas, Texas 75218 Trevor Lovell Director, ReEnergize Texas 1303 San Antonio St.
10
Roy Waley, Vice Chair Co-Chair Conservation Committee Sierra Club-Austin Regional Group 131 OB Palo Duro Austin, Texas 78757 Craig McDonald Texans for Public Justice 609 W. 18th St., Ste. E Austin, TX 7870 1 Kaiba White 1307 Barton Hills Dr., Apt. 8 Austin, Texas 78704 David Power 12733 Council Bluff Austin, Texas 78727 El Paso Regional Sierra Club Group Bi ll Add ington, Water, Waste, and Development Chair Aguavida@valornet.com Bill Addington 3 rd Generation Citizen of Texas El Paso and Sierra Blanca, Texas Aguavida@valornet.com 915-539-4158 11