Search for:

NRC expected to release reports for Andrews site this month

July 27, 2021

Caitlin Randle, Reporter-Telegram

Andrews County waste dump site

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is expected to release a Safety Analysis and final version of the Environmental Impact Statement for a proposed nuclear waste site in Andrews County by the end of this month, according to activism group Beyond Nuclear.

Kevin Kamps with Beyond Nuclear told the Reporter-Telegram the NRC has told the group those reports will be released in July. After those reports are made public, the NRC will decide whether to approve Waste Control Specialists’ application to store high-level nuclear waste.

Kamps said the NRC will likely make a decision on that application in mid-September.

“Somewhere in there, hopefully sooner rather than later, our side will get its day in federal court on all our appeals,” he said in an email.

Beyond Nuclear, SEED Coalition, Sierra Club, Fasken Oil and a coalition of oil royalty owners have filed suit against the NRC in the hopes of preventing the Andrews site and other proposed sites; appeals of those cases are in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Washington, D.C., Circuit, according to Kamps.

Numerous local leaders have spoken out against the proposed Andrews site, including representatives from Fasken Oil and Ranch and the Midland County Commissioners’ Court. Gov. Greg Abbott and U.S. Rep. August Pfluger have also vocalized opposition to storing high-level waste in Andrews.

Andrews County Commissioners came out against the project as well, voting on July 15 to sign a resolution stating their opposition to the storage of high-level nuclear waste in the county. The commissioners faced pressure from residents during two packed Commissioners’ Court meetings.

Andrews County Judge Charlie Falcon noted during the July 15 meeting that the resolution would not necessarily affect the NRC’s decision.

WCS, in partnership with Interim Storage Partners, filed an application in 2016 to store high-level nuclear waste in Andrews County for 40 years before the waste would be moved to a permanent repository.

The NRC released a draft Environmental Impact Statement in May of 2020 regarding the application to open a high-level waste site. In that report, NRC staff recommended approval of the application, stating that the impact of constructing and operating a waste site at the proposed location was found to be minimal.

Caitlin Randle is a general news reporter for the Midland Reporter-Telegram.

License Application of Interim Storage Partners LLC, Docket 72-1050

RE: License Application of Interim Storage Partners LLC, Docket 72-1050, and License Application of Holtec, Inc., Docket 72-1051, for a Consolidated Interim Storage Facilities

Both proposed projects are illegal under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act since no U.S. repository exists. Both would result in transport of radioactive waste through Texas. We ask that you deny both licenses. Bringing this nuclear reactor waste to Texas and New Mexico would result in dangerous de-facto permanent dumps.

Governor Abbott has expressed concerns about potential impacts to the Permian Basin, the world’s largest producing oilfield. Abbott said the region would become a “prime target for attacks by terrorists and saboteurs. This location could not be worse for storing ultra-hazardous radioactive waste… I urge the NRC to deny ISP’s license application.” Read Governor Abbotts letter.

Resolutions opposing consolidated interim storage were passed by five Texas counties and three cities, as well as by the Midland Chamber of Commerce. Collectively this represents the voices of 5.4 million Texans. Read the Dallas County resolution.

Additionally, Andrews County Commissioners voted unanimously on July 15, 2021, high-lets oppose high-level radioactive waste storage in their county, which would host the proposed ISP site.

Texans at the local, state and federal level do not consent to having our state become a nuclear waste dumping ground! Please prevent nuclear disasters that risk our health and safety and imperil our businesses and economy.

We urge the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to deny the license applications of ISP and Holtec International for Consolidated Interim Storage of high-level radioactive waste in Texas and New Mexico.

Radioactive waste storage bill derailed in the Texas House on a technicality

May 5, 2021

Some saw the legislation as a "Trojan horse" that would bring high-level radioactive waste to Texas. But the bill’s author disputed that argument.

John C. Moritz
Corpus Christi Caller Times

AUSTIN — Contentious legislation that would have given financial breaks to the company that operates the storage site for low-level radioactive waste in remote West Texas was derailed Wednesday on a procedural technicality in the state House.

The maneuver to knock down House Bill 2692 short-circuited what had been expected to be a freewheeling floor debate over whether the bill would have provided a backdoor to bringing the most dangerous waste from decommissioned nuclear power plants to Texas.

Federal regulators are reviewing plans to sell retiring nuclear reactors to nuclear waste management company for quicker decommissioning. Questions have been raised about whether the companies have the experience and funds to do the job.

The legislation’s author, state Rep. Brooks Landgraf, a Republican who represents the site in Andrews County, insisted it would expressly ban such waste from Texas. And he said he was "mystified" that anyone would interpret it otherwise.

"We want to make sure safety is a top priority … not only at the facility but (while waste is) transported to the facility," Landgraf said before the bill was scuttled.

The legislation was designed to grant Waste Control Specialists, the company that operates the Andrews County site, a break on surcharges and fees levied by the state on the revenue it takes in to handle the waste. The company said it needs the breaks to remain competitive in the face of out-of-state competition.

But even before the measure was brought to the House floor, it was the subject of intense lobbying on behalf of the company and by forces seeking to defeat it.

In something of an odd alliance, several environmental groups opposed to reducing the surcharges and fees, much of which goes into a fund to ensure that the dumpsite will be safely maintained in perpetuity, were joined by oil and gas interests active in drilling in the energy-rich Permian Basin, which includes Andrews County.

Fasken Oil and Ranch, a family-owned company that is one of the largest private landowners in Andrews County, mounted an intensive campaign through a nonprofit entity called "Not Our Trash" that ran TV ads in several Texas markets against the bill.

In a news release announcing the ad campaign, the group called Waste Control Specialists a private waste company that "is lobbying to unravel good law" that has been on the books for more than a decade in the effort to reduce its fees and surcharges.

Texas Capitol
Texas Capitol Dome: Austin Price/The Texas Tribune

"By gutting important safety regulations and dumping radioactive waste in an open pit, they are turning a blind eye to that contaminated material potentially being carried by the wind onto our grazing lands, our ranches and farmlands, and our communities," said Fasken executive
Tommy Taylor, who also is president of the nonprofit.

Dave Carlson, the chief operating officer for Waste Control Specialists, said in a statement to the USA TODAY Network that such claims were misrepresenting what the legislation would do.

"This bill does not make any changes to the safety of the facility, the most robust low-level waste facility ever constructed," Carlson said. "The existing statute puts the Texas facility at an overwhelming competitive disadvantage to the primary competitor. You’d be hard pressed to find another company who pays 31% of its revenue in taxes in this state or in any state."

Karen Hadden director of the Sustainable Energy and Economic Development Coalition, called the bill "a nuclear Trojan Horse."

“When you open it up you find that the ban on high level nuclear waste is written deceptively and won’t work," she said. "It will double the amount of permitted waste, weaken state regulations and cheat the state of the money it will need to clean up the mess.”

The Andrews County site does handle low-level radioactive waste from nuclear plants and other facilities. But Landgraf, when he began explaining the legislation to House members, also noted that it also receives radioactive materials from x-rays used in medical and dental offices from virtually every community in Texas along with materials used in manufacturing and even from oil and gas drilling.

Still, he acknowledged the concerns of the bill’s opponents and promised to revise some of its provisions on the fly in the effort to alleviate them.

But state Rep. Tom Craddick, the House’s longest serving member who represents Midland in the heart of the Permian Basin, made reference to Waste Control Specialists’ application pending before the federal Nuclear Regulatory Committee to build and operate a high-level waste facility in Andrews County.

A federal permit would likely trump a state ban on such waste, Craddick told Landgraf just before he pointed out the procedural flaw that derailed the bill. In short, the official bill analysis that explains the details of legislation to House members was found to be misleading and missing key details. That meant House rules prevented members from debating it it and taking a vote.

It was not immediately clear whether the House bill could be revived and perhaps considered in the final four weeks of the 2021 legislative session. A similar measure is pending in the Senate, but it has been removed from the chamber’s agenda, a signal that it lacks the votes needed to be considered for debate.

Carlson, after the bill was derailed in the House, said his company intends to press forward on the matter.

"Our interests and the state’s interests are aligned and we are committed to working closely with the our community, our regulators and the state of Texas to ensure the facility remains viable, safe and an asset to the state’s economy," he said.

John C. Moritz covers Texas government and politics for the USA Today Network in Austin. Contact him at and follow him on Twitter @JohnnieMo.

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.

Texas radioactive waste disposal company seeking break from state fees and surcharges

At issue is whether Texas could become the disposal site for high-level radioactive waste.
April 8, 2021

Depending on who is interpreting it, legislation moving closer to a vote in the Texas House and Senate would either shut the door to the state ever becoming home to high-level radioactive waste or carve a path to bring it in.

Two separate but similar bills — one in the House and the other in the Senate — seek to lower state fees and surcharges imposed on Waste Control Specialists that operates a storage and disposal site in Andrews County, near the border with New Mexico.

Waste Control Specialists, which stores low-level radioactive waste in a remote area of West Texas, is seeking tax breaks from the state that would total about $1.4 million a year.

Waste Control Specialists, which stores low-level radioactive waste in a remote area of West Texas, is seeking tax breaks from the state that would total about $1.4 million a year.

The site houses low-level radioactive waste from facilities such as nuclear power plants, sundry industries and from health care facilities that use x-ray and radiation therapy for care of their patients.

Unlikely bedfellows

Officials from Waste Control Specialists say they need the financial breaks that would cost the state about $1.4 million a year to remain competitive. But environmental groups opposing both bills argue that the breaks would leave Texas short of money in the event the company should go belly up, and taxpayers would be stuck with the bill for managing the site for centuries into the future.

The environmentalists have an unlikely ally in one of Andrews County’s oldest traditional energy companies and its largest private landowner, Fasken Oil and Ranch Ltd.

The bills’ authors, Rep. Brooks Landgraf, R-Odessa, and Sen. Brian Birdwell, R-Granbury, say they contain safeguards to prohibit high-level radioactive waste from ever being shipped to Andrews County for disposal.

"e;A person, including the compact waste disposal facility license holder, may not dispose of or store high-level radioactive waste or spent nuclear fuel in this state,"e; a section in both bills reads.

A committee has approved House Bill 2692, and it is awaiting placement on the full House calendar. A Senate committee is weighing Senate Bill 1046.

Drilling operations at risk?

Several people testifying during House and Senate committee meetings on behalf of environmental groups said the definition of “person” could be subject to wide interpretation. So did Tommy Taylor, an executive with Faskin Oil and Ranch.

And if high-level radioactive waste should somehow find its way to Andrews County, which is part of the oil-rich Permian Basin that stretches from Texas to New Mexico, Taylor said it could jeopardize the safety of drilling operations and decimate the fossil fuel industry and the Texas economy.

This (the oil and gas industry) is a significant source of income for Texas and (vital for) the security of our nation,” Taylor said.

What worries the legislation’s opponents is that Waste Control Specialists has an application pending before the federal Nuclear Regulatory Committee to build and operate a high-level waste facility in Andrews County. A federal permit would likely trump a state ban on such waste.

Former state Rep. Lon Burnam, a Fort Worth Democrat and now part of the Tarrant Coalition for Environmental Awareness, said Waste Control Specialists cannot argue on one hand that its financial position is so precarious that it needs a break on state fees and on the other hand tell the Nuclear Regulatory Committee it has the means to build a state-of-the-art waste disposal site in West Texas.

“These guys perpetually cry wolf and plead poverty,” Burnam said. “This company is not at risk of going under.”

But Waste Control Specialists President David Carlson told the Senate Natural Resources Committee that a company in Nevada with lower operating costs is well-positioned to outcompete his firm for low-level waste disposal. He said the Andrews County site is also very expensive to operate.

“This is the most protected low-level radioactive waste site that’s ever been built,” Carlson said.

High-level waste

Among opponents of Waste Control Specialists’ permit application before the Nuclear Regulatory Committee is Gov. Greg Abbott, who said it would leave Texas vulnerable.

“According to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, the cargo currently shipped on rail lines through the Permian Basin consists primarily of “oilfield commodities such as drilling mud, hydrochloric acid, fracking sand, pipe, and petroleum products, including crude oil, as well as iron and steel scrap,” Abbott said in a Nov. 3 letter to the Nuclear Regulatory Committee.

“There are also significant agricultural commodities. In the event of a rail accident or derailment, even absent a radiological release, the resources and logistics required to address such an accident would severely disrupt the transportation of oilfield and agricultural commodities, to the detriment of the entire country.”

Asked by Sen. Judith Zaffirini, D-Laredo, if Waste Control Specialists would consider withdrawing its federal application to satisfy bipartisan concerns, Carlson replied, “No, ma’am.”

Supporters of the legislation, including Republican Sen. Kel Seliger of Amarillo, noted that Texas is obligated by state and federal law to safely dispose of low-level radioactive waste and that Andrews County is the chosen site.

Nearly every community with a hospital or a dentist office, not to mention those with defense industry and other plants, contribute to that waste stream, they said.

Finally, Andrews County officials testified that a profitable Waste Control Specialists is vital to the remote region’s economic health. Local taxes and fees pay for parks, ambulances and recreational projects countywide, said Morse Haynes of the Andrews Economic Development corporation.

“They’re great corporate citizens,” Haynes said.

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.

Texas governor opposes interim storage site

Jeremy Dillon, E&E News reporter
Energy Wire

Thursday, October 1, 2020

Texas Governor Greg Abbott.
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) yesterday announced his opposition to a pair of proposed interim nuclear storage sites in West Texas and southeastern New Mexico. World Travel & Tourism Council/Wikimedia Commons

Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott added his name yesterday to the list of state leaders opposed to the storage of nuclear waste in their state.

His opposition to a pair of proposed interim storage sites in West Texas and southeastern New Mexico currently undergoing Nuclear Regulatory Commission review likely makes the prospects of those private projects moving forward untenable.

New Mexico’s Democratic Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham voiced similar concerns to both sites last year. She echoed those concerns in August (Greenwire, Aug. 10).

In a letter to President Trump yesterday, Abbott argued that the storage site’s location in the Permian Basin — one of the world’s most prolific oil plays — could have the potential to disrupt oil and natural gas production operations.

"A stable oil and gas industry is essential to the economy, and crucial to the security of our great nation," Abbott said. "Allowing the interim storage of spent nuclear fuel and high level nuclear waste at sites near the largest producing oilfield in the world will compromise the safety of the region."

The planned West Texas site from Interim Storage Partners would be next to an existing Waste Control Specialists LLC low-level nuclear waste disposal facility in Andrews, Texas.

Interim Storage Partners was not immediately available for comment.

The plan — should it receive NRC approval — would put the 5,000 tons of nuclear waste on a concrete pad in dry-cask storage containers. Subsequent additions could boost the amount to 40,000 tons. In a draft environmental impact statement, the NRC staff found the proposal would not have significant impacts on the environment (E&E News PM, May 5).

That draft EIS is in an extended public comment period as a result of the pandemic.

More than 80,000 metric tons of nuclear waste currently sits at more than 120 sites across the country without any tenable strategy from the federal government on how to address it.

That waste had originally been pegged for disposal in the controversial Yucca Mountain site in Nevada.

Both the Obama and Trump administrations abandoned those efforts over heavy state opposition to the facility going forward. Trump in a February tweet called for "innovative solutions" to the nation’s nuclear waste backlog, and the Department of Energy said it would pursue an interim storage strategy.

New Mexico’s political leaders have expressed concern that any interim storage site could turn into a de facto long-term repository, given the limited number of other disposal strategies to have emerged.

Abbott echoed those concerns in his letter to the White House.

"The proposed sites in Texas and New Mexico do not provide the deep geologic isolation required for permanent storage in order to minimize the risks of accidents, terrorism, or sabotage, which could disrupt the country’s energy supply with catastrophic effects on the American economy," he said.

Reporter Hannah Northey contributed.