Skip to main content

Waste Control Specialists to Host Used Nuclear Fuel

WasteControlSpecialists Yesterday, we teased that NEI and Waste Control Specialists were having a press conference at the National Press Club. So what’s the deal there?

Valhi, Inc. subsidiary Waste Control Specialists LLC ("WCS"), announced today that on the close of business February 6, 2015, it sent a notification to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC") expressing its intent to apply for a license for the interim storage of used nuclear fuel at its facility in Andrews County, Texas. 

The need for such a facility arises as a result of the ongoing decades long search for a disposal solution for the nation's used nuclear fuel.  In 2012 the presidential-appointed Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future issued a report recommending that at least one interim storage facility be sited in the U.S., while a permanent disposal site is being developed.

We mentioned the Blue Ribbon Commission yesterday, but I thought a little better of it afterward. What the BRC did was gather up a bunch of ideas and recommend those its members thought might point a direction forward on used fuel storage. As far as I know, it didn’t create any of these ideas, it collated them into a report. I’d heard many of the BRC’s conclusions for years prior to its formation.

Still, the long-disbanded commission has informed the discussion about used fuel since 2012, when it issued its report, something Nasdaq is picking up on here.

"This will be a community supported, consent-based facility - just as are our current nuclear disposal facilities," Lindquist said.

That’s BRC language, so WCS seems well aware that it is operating within a framework that has found broad support. That’s pretty smart.

Why WCS? Well, storing radioactive material is in its wheelhouse and if you have a business, you look for ways to expand it.

"This is a unique opportunity for WCS to provide a viable solution to the industry's needs," said William J. Lindquist, Chief Executive Officer of WCS.  "We already offer the only one-stop shop for low-level radioactive waste ("LLRW") storage, processing and disposal and with this development we will be in a position to provide a comprehensive solution for the entire range of waste produced in the nuclear fuel cycle."

---

Speaking of consent-based, how are Texas leaders receiving this news? The Texas Tribune takes a look:

Several Texas officials have welcomed the idea of bringing the waste to Texas. That includes former Gov. Rick Perry, who last year wrote, “We have no choice but to begin looking for a safe and secure solution for [high-level waste] in Texas.”

Last year, House Speaker Joe Straus, R-San Antonio, instructed lawmakers to study the economic potential of storing highly radioactive nuclear waste in Texas.

U.S. Rep. Joe Barton, R-Ennis, told The Texas Tribune in a statement that he continues to support the Yucca Mountain project but “while we continue to debate the topic in Washington we need to develop interim storage facilities.”

“I think putting one of these facilities in Texas is a good idea, as long as the community and its leaders, including city council and county commissioners, welcome it,” the statement said.

That’s not bad. Andrews County is represented by Rep. Mike Conaway (R-Texas). I couldn’t find anything about this at his site, but EENews has it covered:

WCS appears to have support in the Lone Star State. Last month, Andrews County commissioners unanimously passed a resolution in support of WCS's efforts. House Agriculture Chairman Michael Conaway (R-Texas), whose district includes the site, said WCS offers the "ideal workforce, geography and geology" for an interim solution that could lead to an ultimate resolution.

That’s pretty darned consent-based. I was a little concerned that the actual citizenry (about 17,000 strong in Andrews County) is not heard from in the stories I surveyed, but they certainly have recourse and can throw the bums out if bums they become. There’s little evidence of it, though, and WCS is well-established in the county. I doubt the NRC will stint on public hearings, where everyone can have a say on what will be, after all, a first-of-its-kind facility. 

Conaway also mentions the workforce opportunities – the average salary in Andrews country is about $34,000, so I expect (though I don’t know for sure) that these will be among the higher paid jobs in the county.

EENews also gives some inches to this:

Environmental groups and consumer advocates continue to raise questions about the site's hydrogeology.

Which is fine – questions should be raised. WCS will have to come up with an environmental report for the NRC, so we’ll understand a lot more then. (And honesty, we understand a lot now. From NEI’s press release: “The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality subsequently analyzed the challenges of developing a consolidated storage facility. It concluded in a 2014 report that such a facility in Texas would, as stated in the county’s resolution, ‘offer electricity consumers significant savings compared to storage at each nuclear power plant’ and that a facility is “not only feasible but could be highly successful.’”)

---

All in all, this is spectacular news – not a complete solution for used nuclear fuel, but a very important step toward that solution. If Congress follows the BRC (more-or-less) in crafting a nuclear energy policy, then what WCS is doing will be right in the groove. Even if Congress chooses a different direction, this interim storage facility still promises to be a significant contribution to one of the thornier issues involving used fuel. We can’t wait for this project to move forward.

---

WCS has set up a Web site on this. NEI, which hosted WCS at the Press Club, has a press release. And NEI will post some videos later this week on its YouTube channel. If you haven’t subscribed to it, you really should – it’s been very active lately with all the interesting events taking place. Lamar Alexander, WCS, the IEA report – and it’s only February!

Comments

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…