Skip to main content

Texas Opens Waste Disposal Facility to 36 States

wcs Here’s the news:

A Texas commission Tuesday set in motion the importation of low-level radioactive-waste from 36 other states, a move long sought by the nuclear-energy industry and long opposed by environmentalists.

The disposal site near Andrews, Texas, is managed by Waste Control Specialists (WCS) and is licensed to process, store and dispose of low-level and mixed low-level radioactive waste (LLRW). Waste Control Specialists became the first American company in 30 years permitted to dispose of Class A, B and C LLRW when the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality granted it a license in 2009. (Others are Barnwell in South Carolina and Energy Solutions in Utah, which each provide similar services for groups, or compacts, of states).

See here for the NRC’s definition of what is represented by the different classes of waste.

Since its inception, the site has been used to dispose of waste from Texas and Vermont (and Maine, too, for awhile), and Vermont still retains exclusive control of 20% of the site’s capacity as part of the deal to allow Texas to take in material from other states.

Why do this now? The answer appears to be economic.

"If the compact site is not economically viable there's no place for that waste to go," [Waste Control spokesman Chuck McDonald] said.

The compact refers to Texas and Vermont, which administer the site together. McDonald isn’t precisely correct – there are other sites – and the two states would doubtless ensure the site’s financial viability - but one gets his point, which is that there is plenty of interest in using the site by other states. As long as there are no safety issues, why shouldn’t Waste Control Specialists want to take it on? It’s what they do.

[McDonald] said that Texas regulators already deemed the site safe, and thus granted a license for the project.

So there you go. I won’t pretend this move is free of controversy – the story gets into that – though a lot of it seems the usual stuff slung around by activist groups as well as the unique qualities of Texas politics. You can judge all that for yourself.

But providing this facility to 38 states in total can only be called a very positive move.

---

The headline for the Texas story from the objective minds at NPR: Commission Lets 36 States Dump Nuke Waste in Texas. Sheesh!

Welcome to Waste Control Specialists. They have their phone number on the sign if you need their services.

Comments

D Kosloff said…
Just be happy that we get to pay for the NPR headlines. Also, that what we are paying for are ojective and solidly professional reporting. Just typing this made me feel better.

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

Why Nuclear Plant Closures Are a Crisis for Small Town USA

Nuclear plants occupy an unusual spot in the towns where they operate: integral but so much in the background that they may seem almost invisible. But when they close, it can be like the earth shifting underfoot.

Lohud.com, the Gannett newspaper that covers the Lower Hudson Valley in New York, took a look around at the experience of towns where reactors have closed, because the Indian Point reactors in Buchanan are scheduled to be shut down under an agreement with Gov. Mario Cuomo.


From sea to shining sea, it was dismal. It wasn’t just the plant employees who were hurt. The losses of hundreds of jobs, tens of millions of dollars in payrolls and millions in property taxes depressed whole towns and surrounding areas. For example:

Vernon, Vermont, home to Vermont Yankee for more than 40 years, had to cut its municipal budget in half. The town closed its police department and let the county take over; the youth sports teams lost their volunteer coaches, and Vernon Elementary School lost th…