The Senate Committee on Natural Resources & Economic Development met on March 25th to take up a full agenda. This report covers discussions on SB 1046. A video of the hearing can be found here.
This report is intended to give you an overview and highlight of the discussions on the various topics the committee took up. It is not a verbatim transcript of the hearing but is based upon what was audible or understandable to the observer and the desire to get details out as quickly as possible with few errors or omissions.
SB 1046 (Birdwell) – Relating to the regulation of radioactive waste; reducing a surcharge; reducing a fee
- Birdwell lays out the bill, Texas serves as a host state and received $25 million from Vermont as a result of being host
- WCS on behalf of Texas constructed the facility to dispose of waste
- Market for disposal has changed significantly over time; facility currently operates at an economic loss due to Texas statute
- Updates are needed
- Reviews bill language by each section
- Lays out committee substitute
- Hinojosa – Trying to make changes to adjust to changes that have taken place, your bill has 3 year capacity before they can go outside compact members?
- Correct, why Vermont and Texas have a lower rate
- Current rates not viable and we don’t want WCS to vacate the contract
- Bill allows TCEQ to preserve space for in-compact and reduce space for those out of compact
- Hinojosa – read some fees done away with, how much would it cost the state?
- There is a fiscal note on the bill we got this morning and will have to work with leadership
- WCS and TCEQ should have freedom to maneuver a bit in the marketplace, trying to allow freedom in the marketplace so that WCS can incentivize deposits primarily in compact but also out
- Hinojosa – cost
- Need to work to lower fiscal note and it is a challenge, don’t recall having that last session
- Ultimately trying to make sure Texas’ contract has an operator that is fiscally solvent to operate the facility
- Seliger – his involvement goes back to 2005, hospital uses radioactive materials so wide impact
- Seliger – members of the committee are welcome to visit the site, in 1995 monies that arrived were arbitrary and should be less concerned with what WCS pays and more concerned with what state may have to pay
- Seliger – if not addressed then WCS goes out of business then state would find themselves in position of hiring same people with additional margin, argues it would cost state of Texas far more at that time than if addressed now
- Zaffirini – argued many years ago that you could store but not dispose of material
- Seliger – disposal is where it goes permanently
Ashley Forbes, TCEQ – resource witness
- Birdwell – Anything in layout of bill you would expand upon that was either inaccurate or create an impression
- Don’t believe so
- Do currently regulate low-level radioactive waste
- Seliger – this moved from HHSC to TCEQ some time ago
- 12 registered against and 4 for the bill
Cyrus Reed, Texas Lone Star Chapter of Sierra Club – against
- Have not seen the committee substitute
- Appreciates there is language to not allow storage of high-level waste other than at the generation sites; may be other places to put that language in the bill to make it stronger
- Concerned about changes in fees, surcharges from 20% to 5% of imported waste
- That money goes into a perpetual care account to use for clean-up of sites, if we decrease surcharge so much will not have funding to clean up
- If don’t want to do it on class A that is fine but it is needed on B and C
- Concern about containerized waste, allowing class A come into the state that is not containerized
- Birdwell – we are not arbitrary but trying to provide latitude to move the fee because the market place has become dynamic; does have to work on fiscal note and appreciates his comments on class A
- Birdwell – intent is economic viability but how to structure
- If we say we need to make site economic, I don’t see a reason on class B&C when they are only game in town
- Much more concern about charge on imported waste
- Seliger – talking about market that can be pretty fluid, right now talking about basic viability
- Zaffirini – used to argue waste has to be stored so it could be monitored and retrieved, is that no longer the standard?
- All waste imported must be in big canisters that are protective
- It should be containerized even in shallow bury but it can still be monitored
Suzie Gosling, Texas Women Voters – against
- Bill does to require WCS to withdraw license to take high level waste
- Inevitable volume of waste will increase
- Eventually when WCS closes the state will accept the responsibility
- More waste at WCS means there will be more to clean up at site
- Better language is needed
- Could mean Texas could bring in waste permanently
Mark Savell, County Commissioner of Andrews County – for
- Reads letter from Judge
- WCS continues to be transparent and committee to safety
- Bill will help economic viability of site and be able to compete
- Reads letter from City
- WCS committed to safety and environment of Andrews and great corporate citizen
David Carlson, President of WCS – on
- Safety; most protected site and no offsite exposure, transported waste is extremely safe
- Necessary; waste generated everyday and Texas is obligated to continue to find space for material
- Change in statute is necessary; constructed with private funds and done so for the state of Texas
- They have a bond for when they close and it is not up to the state of Texas
- Prices needs to be set so they can compete in the market
- Pay 31.25% taxes compared to around 12% in Utah
- Lucio – have you look at doing interactive partnerships at any time?
- Not by company, but in general radioactive waste is handled by country that generated it
- Lucio – could it happen if there is an agreement?
- Technically it could happen but it a political question
- Birdwell – containerization?
- It provides worker safety only – they use containers for B & C
- Does not provide any health or safety benefit to public
- Birdwell – TCEQ
- License allows for a waste amount set by TCEQ
- Zaffirini – you are president?
- Yes
- Zaffirini – repeal of Health and Safety Code, to negotiate in good faith why remove that requirement
- TCEQ has been reviewer of contracts, this says TCEQ is no longer an additional reviewed but they are still subject to all the state laws
- Zaffirini – you may want to look at the bill to make sure that is clear
- Zaffirini – question on anti-trust, no definition of person so what is your definition and would you include it?
- Heard person has a broad definition but not something he put in there
- Zaffirini – Governor has stated opposition to high level waste
- Intent to comply with laws of state of Texas, does not intend to withdraw application
- Lucio – TCEQ recommended against lowering fees, reducing oversight is a concern and noted colleague Rep. Tom Craddick stated concerns as well
- Lucio – space for in-compact producers
- Challenge is Utah facility is cheaper so in-compact producers are sending to Utah because it is cheaper, bill would allow for different in fees such as in state tuition vs out of state tuition
- Lucio – is this a local bill or statewide
- Statewide because generation of waste across the state such as hospital and various industries
- Will work with Sen. Lucio and knows this is a work in progress
- Zaffirini – the most controversial when she first came to legislature and has been controversial for a long time
Lon Burnham, Tarrant Coalition for Environmental Awareness – against
- Don’t want high level radioactive waste
- Need accurate numbers
- Bill does not sufficiently band importation of high-level radioactive waste
- Bill ignores never ending mission creep by vendor
- Non-compact sources sent to WCS because of their statement they need money
- Over 20 plants getting ready for decommissioning now
- Birdwell – TCEQ still retains oversight they just don’t set price in statute, does not equate setting a price as meaning the same thing as oversight
- Hinojosa – losing money, not making money and price set by TCEQ
Adrian Shelly, Public Citizen – against
- Would suggest adding greater than class C
- Fiscal note is same as House version but believe the fiscal note is far greater than the one presented
- Think the number is off and refers committee to his written testimony for more details
- Zaffirini – testimony says Texas could be responsible for multi-billion clean up
- Heard site is obligation of license holder but if they were to wind down it is conceivable that Texas would be on the hook for a disaster clean-up
- Only revenue state receives is from fees and surcharge
- Fiscal note is looking backward at numbers, need to run forward for a few years
- Zaffirini – asked about written testimony statement
- Bill required expansion and removes discussion of review at future date
- Shouldn’t handcuff ourselves that way
- Hinojosa – asked about 20% for non compact members, we are also reducing your fee if you are out of compact
- Yes
Edward Selig, GM Advocates for Responsible Disposal in Texas – for
- Association of low level waste generators
- Support disposal rates that are fair
- This bill provides for preferred pricing and provides for guarantee of waste
- Thanks for modification of section 2.01
Dale Bulah, self – against
- Texas would lose $100 million or more
- Huge volume of waste would bring huge profits
- State needs revenue
Tommy Taylor, Fasken Oil and Ranch – against
- Organized with others again application of storage of high level nuclear waste
- Currently WCS operates a low level waste facility
- Here arguing again for something WCS said they would not do
- Really worried about high level nuclear waste
- When you redact laws on how you deal with contracts and take out TCEQ is a problem
- This is not the place to put the fuel rods, not a risk free endeavor
- Not against things Andrews city and county want but when it threatens assets of family and Permian Basin they cannot support; need to two the line and make them withdraw the application
- Zaffirini – removal of anti-trust or negotiate in good faith
- Dealing within companies under Umbrella
- Bill is about decommissioning nuclear plants
- Permit wants to house a large majority of that – sets us up for failure
- Zaffirini – “way out” in West Texas comment, can you talk about low level and high-level waste
- Terrible accidents on railroads, bad roads, if we had an accident
- They said they put them in containers but test have never been done on the fuel roads
- It will go right downtown Midland into Abilene, etc
- People dealing with rods are on site but this is not a nuclear power plant but a waste facility
- If they would pull permit would be able to sleep at night
- Seliger – Governor and Committee has said they are not supportive of high level waste, as for transportation a truck leaving almost every day with materials and believes there is risk but it should be assessed and dealt with
Tom “Smitty” Smith – against
- Well meaning intent to band high level waste coming to Texas
- Definition of person does not include the federal government and they would be the title holder
- We think we have responsibility but not to bring in waste from the rest of the country
- Need to look forward on fiscal implication
- Hinojosa – main objection about out of state
- Correct
Bridget Hyde – against
- Find language in bill very confusing
- Why reduce the surcharge and eliminate fee if really against high level nuclear waste
- Would separate the issues rather than put low level and high level in same bill
Karen Hadden, SEED Coalition – against
- Considers bill similar to poison apple
- Does not think language is strong enough
- Needs to include greater than Class C
- A lot of money to the state would be lost if they reduced the surcharges
- Don’t remove regulation of TCEQ
- Need to containerize even class A waste
- Zaffirini – do you have concerns about contamination at site?
- Yes other sites have leaked can range from millions to billions in clean up
- In New York the state was stuck for $2 billion
- Need to collect money in surcharges
- Zaffirini – was SEED coalition involved when permit was initially denied and then approved?
- Because of water and contamination many staff resigned on principal of licensing site
- Some wells are still testing saturated at the site
- Workers in cafeteria were exposed before current ownership
- Zaffirini – fiscal note?
- It significantly underestimates cost in lost revenues
- Need to look at decommissioning reports to help better estimate cost
- Hundreds of millions if not billions at stake
Bill left pending