Search for:

NorthStar: Vermont Yankee demolition ahead of schedule

October 18, 2019

By Susan Smallheer
Brattleboro Reformer

VERNON — Nine months into the demolition of the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant, NorthStar CEO Scott State says the project is already about six months ahead of schedule. He said the company has been able to make progress by "doing things differently."

State said the project was divided up into three, two-year segments, and that the company will complete the project ahead of the 2030 deadline easily and on budget.

NorthStar’s partner for the first segment of the project, Orano USA, is already cutting up the nuclear reactor’s internals and getting them ready for shipment to another partner’s waste site in western Texas.

State said he originally expected the job would be completed by 2026.

"I think we’ll be done well before 2026," he said Thursday during a tour of the Vernon site with reporters, giving an update of the $500-plus million project. "We are months ahead of schedule."

State said despite the pace, the company had recently reached 220,000 man hours on the site with no ‘lost-time accidents,’ which he said is a tribute to the company’s planning and safety culture.

"These are big logistical jobs," he said.

State said NorthStar was in negotiations with the town of Vernon about leaving untouched some buildings and components, as long as they pass a radiological survey. NorthStar’s administrative building, which sits outside the security fence surrounding the plant and the de-construction zone, is one asset the town is interested in, State said.

He said he hopes to transfer some of the "assets" to Vernon even before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission releases the entire site from federal oversight.

"This is the community’s asset," said State. "We’re not developers."

The plant’s intake structure on the Connecticut River is another item the town is interested in, said David Pearson, NorthStar’s vice president.

COOLING TOWERS

Vermont Yankee’s iconic dual bank of cooling towers are now gone, leaving a large field free of tons of debris, but still sporting a 250,000 gallon hole that was an emergency reservoir for the plant.

"We’ll fill it in," said Corey Daniels, a longtime employee at the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant, as he and others climbed up a now-vacant security tower installed in the hyper security days after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and got a good view of the ongoing demolition and clean up of the 130-acre site.

In all, the demolition is expected to take at least six years, and possibly longer, and cost upwards of $500 million.

By comparison, Entergy Nuclear, which had owned Vermont Yankee since 2002, had estimated it would cost more than double that amount – $1.2 billion – and that included waiting 50 years or so to let the plant’s trust fund grow, and allow radioactivity to decay.

While nothing was under active demolition like the cooling tower project, which was completed in July, workers were busy moving large concrete and steel casks that would hold cut-up components of the plant’s reactor core – some of the most radioactive material, aside from the plant’s fuel.

The vast majority of the demolition will be shipped off site by rail. NorthStar rebuilt the rail line that served Vermont Yankee back when it was constructed in the 1960s and 1970s, to carry heavy loads. The radioactive materials are labeled and put into either special shielded boxes and filled with concrete, or inserted into heavy-duty canisters for the trip to western Texas.

According to Daniels, shipping by rail is much more efficient and much cheaper than trucking.

On Thursday, workers were preparing one of the 17 large boxes that would hold the pieces of the reactor vessel internals.

WHERE WILL THE WASTE GO?

At Yankee, it’s all about nuclear waste and where it will go.

The transfer of the nuclear fuel from the plant’s spent fuel pool into concrete and steel canisters was completed a year ago, shortly before NorthStar bought Vermont Yankee from Entergy Nuclear Corp., said State.

There are 58 of the giant canisters on the north end of the Yankee site, behind barbed wire and barricades – and guards. It will remain there for years, until the federal government acts to create either permanent storage for the dangerous, highly radioactive fuel (hence the security), or an interim storage site.

State said Waste Control Specialists, which he described as a partner of NorthStar’s, runs a low-level radioactive waste site in western Texas and has proposed building an interim storage site, a plan that is pending before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Holtec International, a competitor of Waste Control Specialists and the builder of the storage casks being used at Yankee, has a competing application for a nearby site in southeastern New Mexico.

State, who lives in Arizona during the winter, makes a point of coming to Vermont Yankee at least once a month to check on progress.

He said he expects the NRC to make a decision on the proposed consolidated, interim storage in about three years, and he said because the WCS site is owned by a NorthStar affiliate, Yankee’s high-level radioactive waste could be shipped quickly, rather than following a federal requirement of oldest-waste first.

NorthStar is hoping that the Vermont Yankee project brings it other nuclear demolition projects, as by State’s calculation there will be another 10 nuclear reactors shutting down in the next five years. NorthStar recently signed an agreement to demolish Duke Energy’s Crystal River reactor in Florida. That project is awaiting NRC approval, he said.

Contact Susan Smallheer at ssmallheer@reformer.com or at 802 254-2311, ext. 154.

Fair Use Notice
This document contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. SEED Coalition is making this article available in our efforts to advance understanding of ecological sustainability, human rights, economic democracy and social justice issues. We believe that this constitutes a “fair use” of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond “fair use”, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Help protect your community from radioactive waste risks!

(Reference: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=NRC-2017-0081-0014)

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) wants to change the rules by reclassifying several categories of extremely dangerous radioactive waste so it go into shallow burial, instead of deep underground as currently required for important safety reasons. This bad scheme risks radioactive contamination of our air, soil and water and must be halted immediately.

Send a letter now! Comment deadline is currently Sept. 20, 2019.

Send comments to: Rulemaking.Comments@nrc.gov
cc: Cardelia.Maupin@nrc.gov
Timothy.McCartin@nrc.gov

RE: NRC Docket ID: NRC-2017-0081

Dear NRC Commissioners,

Please halt the proposal to reclassify waste would create risks to our health, safety, the environment and the Texas economy. Reclassifying is a disastrous plan that would allow very hot Greater-Than-Class C and TRU waste to go into shallow burial pits instead of deep underground in a geologic repository, the less risky approach currently required for safety reasons.

This proposal would set in motion the plan to send the nation’s entire inventory of this waste stream to Texas. The amount of waste analyzed in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement was 420,000 pounds and 161 million curies. This massive amount of curies is more than 28 times the full licensed capacity of WCS’ huge federal waste pit and 41 times the full capacity of the adjacent Compact Waste pit.

This would be a huge increase in very hot material including irradiated metal from inside nuclear reactor cores. Shallow burial at the WCS site would be close to the nation’s largest freshwater aquifer, the Ogallala, at a site prone to temperature extremes, earthquakes, floods, wildfires and tornadoes.

Some of the radioactive materials, especially Technetium-99, can volatilize. Winds could spread radioactive contaminants into the air, soil and water, leading to disaster. If containers leak due to cracks or fissures various water bodies could be impacted, as TCEQ Radioactive Materials Division staff warned against when they recommended denial of the license for WCS’ low-level waste site. The bottom of the shallow burial for GTCC waste would be only 120′ deep, not 2000 feet or more, as it should be. According to WCS’ Environmental Assessment, 100,000 pound containers would be stacked up to seven units deep, putting them close to the surface, where radioactive materials could volatilize even more readily. Human inhalation would become a risk.

Shallow burial of highly radioactive materials in a region prone to earthquakes fails to meet the common sense test. One earthquake had its epicenter just 5 miles away from the site in Eunice, New Mexico. The Permian Basin is the nation’s largest oil producing region. What would happen if such a major oil supply became contaminated?

Transport of this massive poisonous waste stream through our communities for the unjustified purpose of shallow burial should be prevented. At least 33,700 truck shipments or 11,800 rail shipments of highly radioactive waste would occur, but the public can’t comment effectively since routes have not been set.

Please halt the changes that would reclassify GTCC and TRU radioactive waste immediately and ensure that it will only go into a deep geologic repository as federal law now requires. This law was designed to protect living things by isolating these dangerous materials deep underground. It is essential that current law remains in place in order to protect our health and safety, all living things and our economy.

Furthermore, please extend the comment period 90 days to allow for full analysis of the complicated technical and practical implications of the potential rule change and so that more people will have the opportunity to comment effectively.

An amendment about waste facility fees was added to a widely supported domestic violence bill. Will it stick?

Sen. Lois Kolkhorst’s office said Saturday that she “is still evaluating all options available to save SB 1804.”

BY SHANNON NAJMABADI
The Texas Tribune

MAY 25, 2019

The bill by Sen. Lois Kolkhorst, R-Brenham, which sailed through the House and Senate with no opposing votes, requires that bond information about domestic violence offenders be entered into a statewide data repository. Miguel Gutierrez Jr. / The Texas Tribune

Texas Legislature 2019

The 86th Legislature runs from Jan. 8 to May 27. From the state budget to health care to education policy — and the politics behind it all — we focus on what Texans need to know about the biennial legislative session.

A widely supported bill to protect domestic violence survivors may have hit an unexpected roadblock after the House approved a last-minute amendment that would delay a scheduled increase to the fees a radioactive waste facility in West Texas must pay.

The measure, Senate Bill 1804 by state Sen. Lois Kolkhorst, R-Brenham, could now be headed to a conference committee where lawmakers from both chambers will negotiate its final language and decide if the waste-related amendment will stay. Kolkhorst could also accept the change. Her office said Saturday, "With only hours left available to review the amendments to her bill, Senator Kolkhorst is still evaluating all options available to save SB 1804."

The author of the amendment, state Rep. Poncho Nevárez, D-Eagle Pass, told The Texas Tribune the bill would pass and that he would strip his amendment if necessary.

Kolkhorst’s bill, which sailed through the House and Senate with no opposing votes, requires that bond information about domestic violence offenders be entered into a statewide data repository.

A dearth of centralized data has made it difficult to verify and enforce the conditions of bond, the analysis argues, and leaves "survivors, law enforcement, and the community" at risk and the offender without accountability. The bill would also require that survivors be notified if an offender is released on bond, the analysis says.

Moments before the House gave the bill final approval Wednesday, Nevárez — who sponsored the measure along with state Rep. Sam Harless, R-Spring — added the amendment.

The amendment, he told other state representatives, "offers some economic competitive incentives in the bill" and was "acceptable to the author." The House approved it with a voice vote.

But the amendment has little to do with the bill itself — which Nevárez acknowledges. "It has absolutely nothing to do with domestic violence, and there is no quibbling about that," he said.

Instead, the amendment appears to delay an increase to a surcharge and state fee paid by the private operator of a waste disposal facility. It bears similarities to bills filed by state Rep. Brooks Landgraf and state Sen. Kel Seliger, Republicans from Odessa and Amarillo, respectively, whose bills appear destined to die with only two days left in the legislative session. The amendment "keeps the status quo," Nevárez said; without it, the fee and surcharge paid by the operator would likely increase this year.

Thomas Graham, a spokesperson for the company that runs the disposal facility, Waste Control Specialists, said the amendment "simply continues current law."

"We’re talking about waste that comes from health care facilities, industrial facilities, the oil and gas industry, and from all parts of the state," he said, citing a state report that recommended lowering the surcharges. "So making sure that the facility remains viable and operational is critical to the state’s economy."

Nevárez said the amendment helps an industry that is a big job creator. But he disputed the idea that there was "something shady" about how he was trying to pass it.

"I did this out in the open — I did it on the House floor. I told them the amendment’s about economic competitiveness, and everyone at their desk can read their amendment. Anyone could have gotten up and asked me a question. Nobody wanted to. I can only assume they’re uninterested in it or they’re fine with it," he said. "There’s nothing untoward about putting an amendment on a bill that has nothing to do with one thing or another at this time of session — everyone’s looking for a ride."

Fair Use Notice
This document contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. SEED Coalition is making this article available in our efforts to advance understanding of ecological sustainability, human rights, economic democracy and social justice issues. We believe that this constitutes a "fair use" of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond "fair use", you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

How a radioactive waste fees amendment was tied to a domestic violence bill

May 25, 2019

By Asher Price
Austin American Statesman

An amendment that would delay fees and surcharges paid by a West Texas radioactive waste disposal company to the state managed to squeak onto the domestic-violence-related bill to which it had been appended as the end of the legislative session approached.

With the bill now heading to Gov. Greg Abbott for his signature, and the amendment still attached, the waste disposal company has notched a victory.

Senate Bill 1804 would require the entry of certain conditions of bond information into a statewide law enforcement information system and set victim notification requirements. The bill was prompted by concerns among police and family members about the bond conditions of domestic violence offenders.

The bill passed the Senate in April by a vote of 31-0. On May 22, it passed the House 142-0, but not before, on the bill’s third reading, Rep. Poncho Nevárez, D-Eagle Pass, successfully added an amendment that would delay until 2021 certain fees and surcharges related to the disposal of low-level radioactive waste — such as rags, syringes and protective clothing from nuclear plants or hospitals — at the Waste Control Specialists site in Andrews County, in West Texas. The fees are set to go into effect this year, with the money meant to go to a perpetual care account for anything that might go wrong at the Waste Control Specialists site.

The amendment is a cousin of legislation that never got to the floor of the House or Senate. That legislation would have reduced by $4.17 million the fees the company pays the state. Company officials say the legislative fixes are necessary to keep the company competitive with waste sites in other parts of the country.

At a House committee hearing on the legislation in March, Waste Control Specialists President David Carlson said the company has "struggled to lower our prices to compete with the marketplace."

He blamed "unreasonable restrictions" built into statute, including what he called excessive taxes.

The House version of the legislation was carried by Rep. Brooks Landgraf, R-Odessa, whose district includes Andrews.

Nevárez, who represents a bordering district, said Landgraf approached him about carrying the amendment partly because as a committee chairman and bill co-sponsor, he has more legislative muscle.

Environmental groups have long opposed radioactive waste at the site, which they say could jeopardize groundwater.

In introducing the amendment in the Texas House, Nevárez told members that "this is an amendment that clarifies that it offers some economic competitive incentives in the bill."

He told House members the amendment was "acceptable to the author" — he himself was a House co-sponsor of SB 1804.

On Saturday, Nevárez told the American-Statesman that the strange fit between the amendment and the bill was not unusual: "You try to catch a ride where you can. If someone had objected to the germane-ness, the amendment does not go on. It’s within the rules, and it’s what we do. It’s a common occurrence."

He said that if the delay in fee-paying "will let them maintain some stability out there and jobs, then it’s worth doing."

"We do that a lot over here," Nevárez continued. "We kick industries in the butt in good ways and bad ways."

Saturday evening, with a key end-of-session deadline looming, Sen. Lois Kolkhorst, R-Brenham, decided to accept the House version of her bill — with the Nevárez amendment attached — rather than opt for a conference committee, in which lawmakers from both chambers would have had to hammer out an agreement or the bill could die altogether.

Asked whether the Nevárez amendment was unexpected, she told the American-Statesman on Saturday afternoon: "Yes."

Ultimately, keen to send her domestic violence bill to the governor for his signature, and with the legislative deadline looming, she declared in the Senate that she concurred with the House version.

Fair Use Notice
This document contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. SEED Coalition is making this article available in our efforts to advance understanding of ecological sustainability, human rights, economic democracy and social justice issues. We believe that this constitutes a "fair use" of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond "fair use", you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

New Nuclear Energy and Fuel Waste Storage Facilities Emerging Near Carlsbad?

March 26, 2018

Adrian C Hedden
Carlsbad Current-Argus

Nuclear war

According to the World Economic Forum’s Global Risks Report, Nuclear War, cyber attacks and environmental disasters lead the record of man-made threats to international stability. Veuer’s Chandra Lanier has the story.

A repository for spent nuclear fuel rods was proposed to be built in west Texas, even as a southeast New Mexican consortium hopes for a similar facility near Carlsbad and Hobbs.

Orano USA, a subsidiary of France-based global nuclear energy company Orano – previously known as Areva, announced a joint venture with Dallas-based Waste Control Specialists (WCS) to bring a consolidated interim storage (CIS) facility to Andrews, Texas.

A CIS facility is used to store the spent nuclear fuel rods temporarily, while a permanent repository is built.

The rods are presently being stored at their generator sites: active and decommissioned nuclear reactor facilities around the country.

Proposed location of the Holtec/ELEA Underground Consolidated Interim Storage Facility. (Photo: courtesy map)

The move would augment WCS’ 14,000-acre facility in west Texas, which is licensed for low-grade nuclear waste, but not for spent nuclear fuel.

The United States does not have a permanent repository, after the Department of Energy’s Yucca Mountain project in Nevada stalled under the administration of former U.S. President Barrack Obama.

The joint venture, known as Interim Storage Partners, requested on March 13 that the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) resume reviewing the project’s license application, originally submitted in April 2016, and put on hold due to a funding shortfall.

"The joint venture will provide safety, flexibility and value for used nuclear fuel titleholders and reduce U.S. taxpayer liabilities for ongoing storage, while plans for a permanent federal repository continue," said Orano USA Chief Executive Officer Sam Shakir.

In total, the facility would hold about 40,000 metric tons of the waste, stored above ground and accepted in 5,000-ton phases, records show.

Officials predicted it could begin accepting waste by 2021.

"This industry-driven near-term solution will use proven storage technology and procedures to expand the capabilities and operations at the WCS site to include consolidated interim storage of commercial used nuclear fuel."

Competition to the west?

Meanwhile, Holtech International and the Eddy/Lea Energy Alliance (ELEA) proposed building a new facility between Carlsbad and Hobbs to hold about 120,000 metric tons of similar waste.

The project’s application for the first 8,680 metric tons was accepted for review last month by the NRC, and officials expect it could open by 2022.

Chair of ELEA John Heaton said there’s enough waste to go around, but a facility in New Mexico is essential to the state’s growing nuclear corridor.

"When we started our project, we knew this was also a potential project for WCS," Heaton said. "We had anticipated they would get back into CIS activity. From our perspective, there’s a lot of waste out there. Lots of spent fuel. There may be other competitors."

(Photo: Holtec International)
A rendering of what Holtec International’s interim nuclear waste repository would look like if completed. (Photo: Holtec International)

Heaton pointed to WCS’s location, close to Eunice and New Mexico’s eastern border with Texas. He said such a facility in Texas would burden New Mexico’s roads and infrastructure without any benefit to New Mexicans, such as jobs and tax revenue.

"It’s clearly important to New Mexico to have our facility in place," Heaton said. "If WCS is the only one in place, New Mexico has all the responsibility. (The facility) is clearly more of responsibility of New Mexico, and Texas gets all the benefits."

Any emergencies at either facility, Heaton argued, would be responded to by New Mexican law enforcement and New Mexico emergency personnel, regardless of the state line.

"It won’t be Andrews that responds," Heaton said. "It will be New Mexico that does. Politicians should be very interested in where the project is."

The safety and security at Holtech’s proposed site would also be superior that pf WCS, Heaton said.

"I don’t think the WCS project even holds a candle to ours," he said. "We have the safest, most secure system in the world. Our project is so superior, I can’t imagine anyone would choose WCS over Holtech. We’re pressing on."

And until a permanent repository can be developed, Heaton said CIS is essential to the nuclear security of the United States.

"CIS is desperately needed in this country right now," he said. "Yucca is probably two or three decades away, even if they decide to move forward with it."

"There are specific differences, but the fundamental problems are the same," Hancock said. "Both of these are bad projects that shouldn’t go forward. We don’t have spent nuclear fuel in Texas or New Mexico, and we don’t need it."
– Don Hancock, Nuclear Waste Program Director at the Southwest Research and Information Center

But critics aren’t convinced interim storage, and the needed transportation of the waste, is necessary ahead of a permanent repository.

Don Hancock, director of the nuclear waste program at the Southwest Research and Information Center in Albuquerque said the spent fuel should be left where it is.

He said the waste can be safely stored at the generator sites, until a permanent repository is opened.

"I think they’re both equally bad, dangerous and uneconomic," Hancock said. "All the things that are wrong with Holtech are wrong with WCS. We don’t need consolidated storage, we’re already storing the waste at or near the generator sites."

Logistically, Hancock said the WCS site makes more sense, as it would use existing infrastructure, and is near active train tracks.

The WCS facility is also already open, he argued, and is storing lower-grade waste. He also pointed to heavy oil and gas development around Hobbs and Carlsbad, creating risks for Holtech’s underground storage system.

"There are specific differences, but the fundamental problems are the same," Hancock said. "Both of these are bad projects that shouldn’t go forward. We don’t have spent nuclear fuel in Texas or New Mexico, and we don’t need it."

Adrian Hedden can be reached at 575-628-5516, achedden@currentargus.com or @AdrianHedden on Twitter.

Fair Use Notice
This document contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. SEED Coalition is making this article available in our efforts to advance understanding of ecological sustainability, human rights, economic democracy and social justice issues. We believe that this constitutes a "fair use" of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond "fair use", you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.