WASHINGTON — The debate over plans for a new facility in West Texas that would store spent nuclear fuel from around the country has been rekindled after Gov. Greg Abbott included efforts to limit high-level radioactive waste in the state on his special session agenda.
Rep. Brooks Landgraf, R-Odessa, represents Andrews County, where a company called Interim Storage Solutions has applied to build a facility to store spent nuclear fuel, which qualifies as high-level waste, until the federal government can establish an ultimate long-term site — though it’s unclear when that would be, and could take years.
With heavily used interstate highways and railways running through the Dallas-Fort Worth area, including the Interstate 20 corridor, environmental groups have warned for years that high-level waste could flow through D-FW on the way to Andrews County if the facility is approved.
Abbott included the issue on his agenda for the Legislature’s second special session, and Landgraf introduced a bill that would prohibit the transportation, storage and disposal of high-level radioactive waste in the state.
The bill does have one important exception: The nuclear power and research reactors already in Texas could continue to store their spent fuel on-site, as they have been doing. The bill would not permit the transportation of high-level waste to the proposed Andrews County facility.
In Texas, there are two commercial nuclear reactors: the Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant in Glen Rose, southwest of Fort Worth, and the South Texas Project in Bay City, southwest of Houston. Both Texas A&M University in College Station and UT-Austin have research reactors on their campuses.
Interim Storage is a joint venture between Waste Control Specialists, which has been disposing of low-level radioactive waste in Andrews County for years, and Orano USA, a subsidiary of one of the world’s largest nuclear power companies.
“My job is to represent the people of Andrews County. Full stop,” Landgraf said in a news release Thursday. “It’s clear: Andrews supports the existing low-level facility, but opposes expansion to store high-level waste that is much more radioactive.”
Landgraf introduced a similar bill during the regular session, but it was blocked after other members objected to the break on state fees it would have given Waste Control Specialists.
State lawmakers, Republican and Democratic alike, have already made it clear that they oppose the proposed facility. Both Abbott and state Democrats have written to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the government agency responsible for approving Interim Storage Solutions’ application, to say they don’t support it.
In July, 63 Texas Democratic House and Senate members signed onto a letter to the commission’s chairman emphasizing that “resolutions opposing consolidated interim storage and nuclear waste transport were passed by five Texas counties and three cities, as well as the Midland Chamber of Commerce. Collectively this represents the voices of 5.4 million Texans.”
Dale Klein, former chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and associate vice chancellor for research at the UT System, said he doesn’t believe Landgraf’s bill will affect the agency’s evaluation of Interim Storage Solutions’ application.
The commission should evaluate the application on technical merit for safety and security, he said.
Klein contends that, from a federal perspective, having a central interim storage facility to house spent nuclear fuel would be advantageous.
“As a nation, it would make sense to have a central storage facility, particularly for sites where the reactors have already shut down, and the only thing remaining is their spent fuel storage,” he said. “Certainly, wherever it’s done will have to be regulated by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, so it will be done in a safe and secure manner.”
Klein said the facility, if approved, will provide new jobs and industry in the area. And as far as safety concerns go, he said the risks involved in the transportation and storage of spent nuclear fuel are low.
“There’s been no issues in the storage of this material to date,” Klein said. “There’s no reason to believe that the storage in West Texas would be any different than the storage at the 35 existing sites, including two in Texas.”
But lawmakers and environmental groups are sounding the alarm.
In his letter to the commission last year, Abbott said the proposed facility “imperils America’s energy security because it would be a prime target for attacks by terrorists, saboteurs and other enemies.”
Karen Hadden, executive director of the Austin-based Sustainable Energy and Economic Development Coalition, an alliance of organizations and businesses that opposes Interim Storage Solutions’ plans, said it’s clear Texans do not want the facility.
“We don’t want it; it should be clear as day that Texas does not want this waste,” Hadden said. “They would haul it across the country at huge risk … and put it all in one place, here. And then what? We’re stuck.”
Hadden said the organization is worried about the potential for spent fuel, which can remain dangerously radioactive for hundreds of thousands of years, spilling and leaking in accidents during transport. It’s also concerned that in storage, the waste could contaminate the Ogallala aquifer, which stretches into that region of West Texas.
“Texas could get stuck with this stuff cracking and freezing and leaking in the desert next to the Ogallala aquifer, our country’s largest freshwater aquifer,” she said. “This is really a horrible plan in an area that has earthquakes that are increasing.”
In July, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission released an environmental impact report for the proposed facility, saying “there would be no long-term impact to land resources from implementing the proposed [Consolidated Interim Storage Facility] project.”
The commission’s final decision on Interim Storage Solutions’ application could come anytime after Sept. 13, when the agency’s final review period ends.
“Managing used nuclear fuel is truly unique in that this approach has a demonstrated decades-long track record proven to keep the public, workers, and the environment safe and secure,” Jeff Isakson, CEO of Interim Storage Partners, said in a statement to The Dallas Morning News. “For the proposed interim storage facility, we have spent close to a decade and millions of dollars to ensure that we fully meet all safety standards.”
In the Legislature, it’s unclear whether Landgraf’s new bill will make it to the governor’s desk. The Texas House only recently achieved quorum after a months-long stalemate, and there are 16 other agenda items on the call for the second special session.
“There are a lot of legislative items on the menu, and the friction between the parties is so high,” said Brandon Rottinghaus, a political science professor at the University of Houston. “Getting things done, even when there’s consensus about what to do, can be a challenge.”
On Monday, the Texas House Committee on Environmental Regulation met to discuss Landgraf’s bill. Many of the witnesses who testified at the hearing opposed the legislation, arguing it doesn’t have enough teeth to prevent the transportation of high-level waste within the state.
“We would like to be for this bill, but what it’s going to take is a real clear ban,” said Tom “Smitty” Smith, a representative for the public interest advocacy organization Public Citizen.
Smith and some other opponents want the bill to cover a wider range of waste, but committee members voted 6-1 to favorably report the bill out of committee without any additional amendments, meaning it could go to the full House later this week.
