September 17, 2001

Hon. Warren Chisum

Chair, Committee on Environmental Regulation

Texas House of Representatives

Chairman Chisum,

On behalf of the undersigned individuals and groups, I would like to thank you for your invitation to engage in conversation about finding a solution to the radioactive waste problem in Texas. We hope that a thorough examination of the facts in a less politicized and hectic time period will lead to long-term solutions to the many problems associated with generating long-lived radioactive waste.

This letter sets out some of the basic facts and principles we believe are critical to further discussion of this topic.

First it is important to recognize that of the total of 43 entities in Texas that generate radioactive waste on an annual basis, only 3% of the waste, or 1,052 cubic feet, is generated by all the industrial, academic, and medical sites put together. The remaining 97%, or 32,903 cubic feet, is generated by three generators: Comanche Peak nuclear plant, South Texas Nuclear Project, and Waste Control Specialists. Additionally, much of the waste currently generated and stored by Waste Control Specialists comes from outside Texas.

There are therefore really two separate problems to be addressed: 1) How to safely and economically manage the relatively small volumes of short and long-lived waste produced by industrial, academic, and medical generators and 2) how to safely mange the massive volumes of long-lived waste produced by the state’s top three generators: Waste Control Specialists, South Texas Nuclear Project, and Comanche Peak Nuclear Plant. While the first problem is intertwined with the second in terms of management, we believe it important to distinguish between the two. Waste from both sources could be managed at the same site, if feasible. However, the continued assumption that the small generators are equal with the larger generators is not conducive to a clear resolution of the problem.

Because such a large percentage of the volume and curies of low level radioactive waste generated in Texas comes from the nuclear power plants, and because 74% of the total expected Texas-Maine-Vermont Compact waste will be the actual steel, concrete, and piping of the dismantled power plants themselves, we strongly believe that long-term, above ground management facilities should be built at or near one or both of Texas’s existing nuclear power plants. This management facility could also be used by the minor generators. The facility(ies) could be licensed to a state agency and operated by a private company.

Andrews County is not a suitable site for the long-term management of nuclear waste for many reasons, including the great distance between Andrews County and the majority of the waste generated (causing unnecessarily increased transportation risks), and risks to the underlying Ogallala Aquifer. In addition to the risk of accidents on the highways, recent news about waste en route to WCS being dumped on a random ranch near Dallas reminds us of the many negative aspects of transporting radioactive waste.

An aboveground management facility constructed at or near one of the power plants and licensed only for a specific amount of waste would serve as a physical safeguard against unlimited importation of waste from the DOE or other entities. A legal structure can be created in which any waste management facility that exceeds volume or curie limits set in statute will automatically be decommissioned.

If the NRC has indicated willingness to work with any state interested in assured isolation, it seems logical that the NRC would be able to help create legal mechanisms through which a state would be able to license an assured isolation facility at or near a power plant, where NRC currently regulates waste storage. Although environmental and community groups have asked for an exploration of this on-site/near site management concept for years, no cost-benefit analysis, health risks comparison, or other investigation has been made to determine the possible economic and health benefits of on or near-site storage. We think the time is ripe for the state to explore this option thoroughly.

The dialogue regarding a responsible solution for the nuclear waste problem should also include discussion of the following management principles:

INCREASE PUBLIC CONTROL OF WASTE MANAGEMENT DECISIONS

REDUCE OR ELIMINATE GENERATION OF WASTE

MANAGE WASTE ACCORDING TO DURATION AND HAZARD OF RADIOACTIVITY

MINIMIZE TRANSPORTATION AND HANDLING OF WASTE

EMPHASIZE MONITORING AND RETRIEVABILITY IN CHOICE OF METHOD FOR MANAGEMENT

PROHIBIT IMPORTATION OF OUT-OF-STATE WASTE FOR STORAGE OR

DISPOSAL/ASSURED ISOLATION

Let us be clear. We agree that above ground management makes sense. We disagree most strongly on forcing the waste management into West Texas, long distances from the power plant sources.

In closing, we again thank you for the invitation to participate in the dialogue. We trust our suggestions will be given careful consideration and hope that your office will keep us informed as the dialogue turns to action within the various agencies and legislative committees.

Sincerely,

Lone Star Chapter, Sierra Club

Ken Kramer, Director and Erin Rogers, Grassroots Outreach Coordinator

Austin

Texas Campaign for the Environment

Robin Schneider, Director

Austin

League of Conservation Voters Education Fund

Margot Clarke, Texas State Director

Austin

Public Citizen

Tom Smitty Smith, Director

Austin

Peace Farm

Mavis Belisle, Director,

Panhandle

Big Bend Regional Group, Sierra Club

Don Dowdey, Chair

Alpine

Fund for Nuclear Responsibility

Don Gardner, President and Ruth Roberts, Secretary Treasurer

Georgetown

Big Bend Green Party

Lisa Powers, Chair

Alpine

WE CAN, Working Effectively for Clean Air Now

Tammy Campbell, Director

Longview

El Paso Regional Group, Sierra Club

Laurence Gibson, Chair

El Paso

John Rath

Grapevine

1. INCREASE PUBLIC CONTROL OF WASTE MANAGEMENT DECISIONS

(A) Radioactive waste should be managed by a publicly accountable state agency, not by a private company (although private contractors with public oversight could be encouraged to participate). Private companies have an economic incentive to handle/import as much waste as possible to maximize profits. A state agency’s bottom line is theoretically protecting health and the environment, not profitmaking.

Siting decisions must be approved by a regional referendum in the host county and all adjacent counties. If any of the affected counties rejects the proposed site, a facility may not be located there.

(C) The state should create an independent public interest counsel to represent all of its citizens in decisions regarding radioactive waste regulation. The PIC would participate in contested case hearings of both the TNRCC (disposal license) and the TDH (processing and storage license). Affected citizen parties should also receive assistance (as applicants do) in order to participate in cases.

2. REDUCE OR ELIMINATE GENERATION OF WASTE

Over the past thirty years, rising disposal costs have stimulated LLRW generators to adopt waste reduction techniques. Innovative practices developed in medicine and research have greatly reduced the waste stream, but further incentives should be created for the larger generators (especially the nuclear power plants). The state of Texas is legally required to "encourage the reduction of the generation of [waste.]" Instead of relicensing Texas’s four nuclear reactors, the state should encourage the phase-out of nuclear power and the replacement of that energy source with clean, sustainable energy sources. The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission recently declared that the radiation dose to the public for each reactor that is relicensed to operate for 20 years (including doses from uranium fuel production and waste disposal), will result in 12 deaths from cancer.

3. MANAGE WASTE ACCORDING TO DURATION AND HAZARD OF RADIOACTIVITY

The current system of classifying LLRW does not address the need to apply stricter controls on longer-lived and more hazardous radionuclides (generated mostly by nuclear power plants) than on shorter-lived elements (often the only waste generated in medicine and research). Many scientists and policy experts have proposed a better alternative, the classification of LLRW into short, intermediate, and long-lived categories. The August 2000 study commissioned by TNRCC states that while most low level waste contains mixtures of both short- and long-lived radionuclides, "segregation practices could be established to isolate a greater volume of waste with only short lived radionuclides."

Whenever radioactive materials are handled or transported, the risk of accident or injury to workers and the public rises. Radioactive waste should be kept as near the site of generation as possible, with sites of the largest generators (such as nuclear utilities) used for management of waste from other locations. Since the power plants create the vast majority of the risk (in both volume and radioactivity of waste), their sites should be used as permanent repositories.

Human beings have not and may never develop a guaranteed method of isolating nuclear waste. All efforts to contain radioactive waste by geological barriers (i.e. by burial) have failed in unanticipated ways and in far shorter times than expected. Any method used for permanent management should emphasize engineered barriers that can be thoroughly monitored on all sides and from which the material can be easily retrieved if it releases radionuclides or decays to a non-radioactive state.

Existing LLRW Compact legislation should be amended to require that participating states adopt these principles and to compel each state to permanently house waste produced within its borders. Regional compacts could encourage cooperation and efficiency in management practices but should not require any state to dispose of waste generated elsewhere. The TX/ME/VT Compact "loophole" (allowing unelected commissioners to contract for receipt of unlimited amounts of waste) should be closed, and the use of compact sites for disposal of federal (primarily DOE) waste should be prohibited. Importation of waste for processing and storage should also be prohibited under the compact. The compact is subject to review by the US Congress every five years after its effective date. The Compact is up for Congressional review in 2003. This presents a prime opportunity for Texas to make changes to the existing compact.