Print đź–¨

The Texas Low Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact Commission met to consider a full agenda, including consideration of import applications, contingency plan applications, the Sunset review process, and agency rulemaking. The meeting agenda can be found here and a video archive can be found here.

This report is intended to give you an overview and highlight of the discussions on the various topics taken up. It is not a verbatim transcript of the discussions 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.

Item 4. Public Comment

Karen Hatton, Self

  • HB 7 passed, Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued a license for ISP for consolidated interim storage at WCS, wondering what the impact will be & thoughts of the TLLRWDCC?
    • Hurley – Will be addressing this in the Chairman’s portion of the agenda

Lon Burnam, Self

  • Appreciates commitment to making comments during the chairman’s report

Item 5. Consideration of and possible action on each of the following applications for

importation of low-level radioactive waste:

  • Item 5a. a. Xcel Energy Prairie Island Importation Form TLLRWDCC 1-0314-00
    • TCEQ approved waste streams; 1k cubic ft & 300 curies
    • Waste will come from Minnesota, part of Midwest Compact & doesn’t require export authority, agreement terminates Aug 31, 2022
    • Motion to approve item as described passes
  • Bionomics Importation Form TLLRWDCC 1-0315-00
    • Class A, B, & C, stable & unstable sources; waste stream approved for disposal by TCEQ
    • 350 cubic ft & 1k curies, will originate from all states aside from those in the TX compact, some will require export authorizations and those will need to be submitted
    • Hurley, TLLRWDCC – With brokers, identifying as a small quantity generator is done by looking at where waste is coming from?
      • John Salsman, TLLRWDCC – Correct, looking at waste from generators that don’t ship a lot of waste, complicated process to be approved by WCS without using a broker; can include universities, hospitals, etc. without capability in house, brokers provide access to the site and handle technicalities
    • Hurley – If they qualify for small quantity generator set aside, it gives them access, correct?
      • Correct, portion of curies are set aside and we don’t allow large quantity generators to eat up all the curies
    • Gathering export authorizations can be done in no more than 4 submissions to the TLLRWDCC
    • Motion to approve item as described passes
  • Southern Nuclear Vogtle Importation Form TLLRWDCC 1-0316-00
    • Class B & C unstable filters, waste stream approved by TCEQ
    • 640 cubic ft, 640 curies, coming from Georgia, does not require export authorization, agreement would terminate Aug 31, 2022
    • Hurley – Just a coincidence that curies and volume are identical?
      • Salsman – Yes, likely means waste hasn’t been put into disposal container yet, so having to estimate volume and curies
    • Hurley – If we get to a point where we are bumping against 275k cap, is the estimate a matter of convenience or necessity?
      • If the waste hasn’t been put in containers yet, this is necessary; waste needs to be specified when shipping, but at a power plant the waste is typically stored in large containers and estimates are not possible
    • Hurley – Curie content is measured before disposal?
      • Curie content is measured before they put containers on the road
    • Hurley – In light of our curie cap, should we require that applicants report back the actual curie content to us and we will know if we have more curies to hand out later?
      • Typical waste streams from power plants are probably not worth the effort
      • We do this effectively for irradiated hardware because of potential swings
      • For power plant shipments, there are typically only 30-40k curies tied up with Class A, B, & C shipments
    • Hurley – This feeds into he first come first serve process we set up; some of these never ship?
      • Many of the irradiated hardware shipments never ship
    • TLLRWDCC Member –
      • WCS provides a report, can look at every import agreement for how much was approved and how was shipped
    • TLLRWDCC Member – There was a 25% gap last year?
      • That seems right
    • Hurley – I hope in subsequent years we are bumping against 275k cap, if every curie matters then something to consider
      • Then we might change our process a little bit
    • Motion to approve item as described passes
  • PerkinElmer Importation Form TLLRWDCC 1-317-00
    • Class A & B unstable, waste stream approved by TCEQ
    • 564 cubic ft, 1.5k curies, coming from Massachusetts, unaffiliated state, terminating Aug 31, 2022
    • Hurley – Seems like a high curie content for only A & B waste
      • Salsman – Part of this is due to what PerkinElmer does, supplies a lot of the tritium for products in the US; tritium is very low energy source so can fall into Class A with similar curie count for high energy sources
    • TOLLRWDCC Member – Had a previous application for B & C with similar volume and activity
    • Hurley – Should go back and quickly defined A, B, & C waste
      • Waste is defined by amount of curies and curies by cubic foot, also if the waste is stable or unstable
      • Big difference is the radioactivity being shipped & the isotopes involved; PerkinElmer ships a lot of tritium
      • Isotopes have different curie limits for concentrations, based on modeling and NCR used to develop waste table limits
    • Motion to approve item as described passes
  • Duke Energy Harris Plant Importation Form TLLRWDCC 1-0318-00
    • Class A & B unstable, waste streams approved by TCEQ
    • 5k cubic ft, 20 curies, from North Carolina, unaffiliated state, terminates Aug. 31, 2022
    • Hurley – Incredibly low activity, but high volume, eligible to go into the DAW facility?
      • Class B cannot go into DAW facility
    • Hurley – Correct, can only be Class A, but would expect a considerable volume of this could
      • Resins are generated at powerplants with very low activity and would be considered low level radioactive waste
    • Motion to approve item as described passes
  • NextEra Point Beach Importation Form TLLRWDCC 1-0319-00
    • Class B & C unstable, waste stream approved by TCEQ
    • 2 cubic ft, 300 curies, from Wisconsin in Midwest Compact & requires no export authorization, terminates Aug. 31, 2022
    • Applicant indicated that waste would be from small quantity generators, Commission disagrees as we never treat nuclear plants as small quantity generators
    • TLLRWDCC comments that there was some confusion on whether this was the facility to contractor doing cleanup, how could they be small quantity generator?
      • Would attribute this to checking a wrong box, but we would never consider them a small quantity; they can ask but we will not allow them as small quantity
    • Motion will include amendment indicating waste is not from a small quantity generator
    • Motion to approve item as described passes
  • Qal-Tek Associates Importation Form TLLRWDCC 1-0320-00
    • Qal-Tek indicated they were generator, led to some questions for the technical committee & some of these have yet to be resolved
    • Qal-Tek stated they were the generator, but indicated some of the materials came from the Southwestern Compact, which is not where Qal-Tek is located
    • Recommend tabling until the technical issues can be resolved
    • Hurley – vast majority of applications are approved because they are technically complete and have been reviewed by TCEQ & technical committee; there is a feeling we are a rubber stamp, but we are not and this is a good example
    • Hurley – Appropriate action is to table and have them resolve the issue and come back
    • Public Comment, Richard Halpin, Self – Thanks TLLRWDCC for extra scrutiny on these applications
    • Hurley – Asks if anyone present is from Qal-Tek to speak on this
      • TLLRWDCC Member – Have had conversations with Qal-Tek, expect questions will be resolved
    • Hurley – Tabling to hopefully get answers to these questions
      • TLLRWDCC Member – Might consider requiring applications to be technically complete before they are allowed to be considered
    • Motion to table passes
  • Qal-Tek Associates Importation Form TLLRWDCC 1-0321-00
    • Broker waste, Class C stable, waste streams approved by TCEQ
    • 55 cubic ft, 120 curies
    • Comes from several sources, Rocky Mountain and Southwestern Compact waste would need export authorization, but have not yet received this, termination ate Aug. 31, 2022
    • Qal-Tek requested this to be small quantity generator, Technical Committee agrees so long as not source is a nuclear utility
    • Jeff Mundy, TLLRWDCC – Should this be added as a condition to the motion?
      • We will
    • Hurley – Two of the compacts from which waste is generating have available disposal sites, but they have indicated they are okay with this waste being exported despite the available disposal capacity
      • One of the waste streams is depleted uranium, long half life means it can be problematic for some disposal sites
    • Applicant will have to provide export and waste generator authorization ahead of shipment, will be considered as part of small quantity generator set aside so long as it is not from nuclear power utilities
    • Motion to approve item as described passes

Item 6. Consideration of and possible action on each of the following amendments: Arizona Public Service Amendment request 1-0307-01

  • 2k cubic ft to 2.5k cubic ft, 600 to 650 curies, requested adding irradiated hardware to waste description
  • Hurley – Amendment process is for existing agreements, we do not allow extensions of time, more than minor changes require TLLRWDCC approval
  • Motion to approve amendment passes

Item 7. Consideration of and possible action on each of the following applications for exportation of low-level radioactive waste: a. Comanche Peak Power Plant TLLRWDCC 3-0045-00 & b. STP Nuclear Operating Company TLLRWDCC 3-0046-00

  • Hurley – Two separate applications, but similar & can be taken up together; caused a lot of discussion on contingency plan
  • Mundy – Have had no reason to believe we will need to use contingency plan, authorized to add conditions to a permit; both power plants are asking for export permit for large volume of Class A with minimal curie count
  • Mundy – These are in-compact generators and not typically under our jurisdiction, but shipping out of state is under our jurisdiction; plants are doing planning
  • Mundy – Contingency Committee suggests granting with some conditions, gap between what they’ve asked for and Committee interest is that plants have request ability to do this & then inform as after
  • Mundy – Committee needs to know about problems before they arise, e.g. shippers moving Class C in route and fires in the route could cause issues; not picking on these plants, but Committees recommending that these are approved, but plants need to call TLLRWDCC and that they want to trigger authorization
  • Hurley – What we’re talking about is something we hope doesn’t happen, e.g. issues at facilities where they can’t take waste; understand why facilities need to plan for contingencies
  • Hurley – Understand why plants want this ability, but notification to the TLLRWDCC is important, hopefully if a problem arises it will be so obvious there won’t be any discussion needed
  • Mundy – Contingency Committee highlights a gap in the rules that don’t allow for contingency action; submitting rules amendment to allow for contingent and exigent events & hoping we can move this draft quickly and we can correct this
  • Mundy – This is why this approval would be with conditions, but with the contingent and exigent rule hopefully this wouldn’t be an issue in the future
  • Linda Morris, TLLRWDCC – Understand where plants are coming from, Rules Committee is looking to bring contingency plan into alignment with rules; need to maintain right to declare contingent events within the TLLRWDCC, but the petitions seem to be worded to allow them to decide
  • Richard Saudek, TLLRWDCC – Applications we received were not anywhere near adequate, dealing with a sleeping issue & important to make a written record; would prefer a discussion & written record and explanation by the plants and others involved for accountability
  • Saudek – Main problem I have with these applications other than messed up dates is that justification simply repeats what is asked for, inadequate
  • Hurley – Asks Commissioners to identify themselves before speaking
  • Hurley – Asks for representatives of the plants to speak on these issues

Richard Adams, Comanche Peak

  • Don’t see any confusion on dates for export authority, seeking date from affirmative vote by TLLRWDCC to end of FY Aug 31, 2022
  • Salsman – In the electronic application submitted by Greg Wood, dates are last years dates
    • Apologize for that, letter accompanying application makes clear we’re seeking dates in the current FY
  • Saudek – We didn’t see a letter for 2022 dates, did see a letter from May 2020
  • Hurley – That would be on us, not on the applicant
    • Hoping any confusion is resolved
  • Adams, Comanche Peak – Filed an application they don’t want to have to use, doesn’t make economic sense, Comanche Peak has not exported any waste for 2.5 years; asking for export authority when the TLLRWDCC is closed and the facility is unable or unwilling to accept waste
  • Picked 14 day timeline because we felt it was reasonable, but would be okay if TLLRWDCC didn’t feel there needed to be a waiting period
  • Did not try and define reasons why, fine with notifying TLLRWDCC in advance of efforts to export
  • Trying to avoid situations where we give notice and then there is some indefinite timeline to receive an answer, suggests 72 hours
    • Mundy – Against any timeline
    • Hurley – Right, he’s suggesting a cap so we don’t sit on it too long
    • Mundy – Understand that, but maybe should delegate these decisions to one commissioner to do this as quickly as possible
    • Adams, Comanche Peak – Fine with an immediate answer, trying to avoid not having an end date
  • Hurley – Asks Saudek, is it your intention that request be in writing to document what you asked for earlier?
    • Saudek – I think it should, given email, etc. this shouldn’t be a great difficulty
    • I don’t understand the emergency need for this type of authorization
  • Saudek – is this something that has been going on? Waste being shipped to facilities?
    • Adams, Comanche Peak – Picked 14 days to demonstrate need, but fine with immediate timeline
    • Not looking to export, but trying to have a contingency when disposal sites are unavailable
  • Hurley – 14 days may not be a good metric, would say no to export during facility closures, etc.; condition we would put on this would be to examine the reason and justification, timelines would go away entirely
    • Mundy – Yes, this is where I’m at
    • Saudek – Trying to get a sense of how urgent these things would be
    • Hurley – This is something we won’t know until it happens
    • Mundy – We can only give authorization for Class A right now, can’t do anything on B & C; talking about super low level material, not sure why this would be an emergency where we need to authorize export
    • Mundy – Incumbent on us to retain oversight instead of handing carte blanche to applicants, should treat all applicants equally
    • Hurley – Will likely be obvious, closer calls might require exporter to submit more info; should lay out process to submit in writing, as simple as an email, but need to endeavor to get response in reasonable timeline
  • TLLRWDCC members discuss exact language of timeline, response from Chair or commissioner, with backup notification
  • Mundy – Wouldn’t make you wait on bona fide emergency, would welcome suggestions on B & C waste
  • Adams, Comanche Peak – Would be dealing with a very rare situation, not aware of any situation where waste facility has closed at all
    • Stephen Raines, TLLRWDCC Executive Director – Only times the facility has been closed were due to weather
  • Comanche Peak is not seeking to export, but would like pretty good assurance that we’d receive a quick answer when needing to export
  • TLLRWDCC Member – How did you come up with the 1 curie, 5k cubic ft?
    • Fraction of the Class A produced in the year, if export need arose it would be for not much waste and not many curies
  • Mundy – I wouldn’t be opposed to increasing curie count given the emergency need
  • Hurley – Basis for 1 curie?
    • Adams, Comanche Peak – Not sure, don’t have the technical knowledge
  • Salsman – Likely DAW resulting from an outage or a percentage of an outage, 5k cubic ft is less than DAW volume either plant would generate in a year; outages lead to incredible volumes of virtually no activity, but still considered waste
  • Mundy – Should we bump it up to 100 curies to give them leeway
  • Salsman – Technical committees at plants likely would have asked for it if they needed it
  • TLLRWDCC Member – Why can’t this be in rule and not be brought up for Commission approval?
    • Hurley – This is the plan, need to correct current requirement for 30 day comment period

Steve Nance, STP Nuclear Operating Company

  • Looking for authorization equivalent 20k cubic ft of DAW, gives us leeway for TLLRWDCC to act and very small amount of curies; continuously
  • Mundy – Not opposed to more curies if you want them for a contingency scenario
  • Hurley – Makes sense as a stopgap to the next meeting for you to put in a new application

Dusty Cortin, Comanche Peak

  • Echoes comments from Adams, no intention of using the permit, essentially a release valve

Motion to approve Items 7a & 7b

  • Hurley – Clarifies export authorization, should include written requirements, need to provide response as soon as possible
  • Saudek – Would it be alright to vote to table so we can work this out?
    • Hurley – Planning to accept with conditions we discussed, could table
    • Mundy – Could authorize contingent exports we gave last year and continue these to our next meeting and work this out
    • Hurley – Not sure if those can be resurrected because they were for a set period and were terminated; could authorize temporary export until our next meeting
    • Mundy – Would like to get conditions worked out, one we did last year didn’t have these
    • Hurley – Can pass a motion with condition attached
  • Hurley – Do we create an open meetings problem if we delegate authority to decide on export authorizations?
    • TLLRWDCC Member – Could delegate to chair in consultation with contingency committee
  • Hurley – Does this resolve the issue of wanting to table?
    • Saudek – Can see where we’re headed, just don’t want lack of precision and without written record
    • Mundy – Whatever we do on these two requests could be a template for Vermont Yankee
    • Mundy – Would like to give plants something today
    • Hurley – Anything we approve can be reconsidered by us whenever brought up
  • Hurley – Maybe what the motion needs to say is authority is delegated to Chair to work out details and Executive Director could issue for comment; could always reconsider at future meetings
  • Hurley – Considering motion to approve export authorization with written submission, approval by Chair or Contingency Committee
  • Melissa Juarez, AG’s Office – Time limit on this approval?
    • Hurley – Anything we approve is set to the fiscal year, but can always reconsider
  • Motion passes: Grant Item 7a. Comanche Peak export request with conditions: 1) must submit in writing via email, 2) Chair or Contingency Committee has authority to approve within reasonable period hopefully not longer than 72 hours, 3) can reach out to WCS for more information, 4) requestor will do what’s necessary to reach out to other members of Contingency Committee, and 5) and dates changed to this fiscal year
  • Salsman – Notes dates on the STP application are correct
  • Motion passes: Grant 7b. STP export request with conditions: 1) must submit in writing via email, 2) Chair or Contingency Committee has authority to approve within reasonable period hopefully not longer than 72 hours, 3) can reach out to WCS for more information, and 4) requestor will do what’s necessary to reach out to other members of Contingency Committee

Item 8. Receive reports from Mr. Dave Carlson of Waste Control Specialists

David Carlson, Waste Control Specialists

  • FY ended Aug 31, 217k cubic ft, 2.4% of licensed capacity used over last 10 years; 456k curies decayed, 12% of licensed capacity
  • Surcharges are $76 million in total, full operation continues and shutdowns have been limited
  • Hurley – Any impact from COVID spikes?
    • Stayed in full operation throughout, had protocols to ensure workforce was not infected
  • Saudek – Curies are 12% of licensed, how much of the built capacity is that?
    • Would need to compare to cubic feet, disposed of roughly half of cubic feet built capacity
  • Saudek – When do you expect to need to expand?
    • We do have a long-term plan incl. capital expenditures
  • Mundy – Do you have forecast on larger projects like Crystal River decommissioning?
    • Info is received confidentially from facilities, would need to investigate how it is released to Commission
  • Morris – Vermont Yankee has been very good about providing timelines, sharing timelines would be very helpful
  • Mundy – Not close to annual caps, but could foresee big projects getting us closer
  • Hurley – Does weight settle over time?
    • No, voids are filled in when waste is disposed, designed to not have subsidence
  • Mundy – Will we need to look at import authorization for more decommissioning?
    • Had good news that Illinois plants will continue to operate, others are moving forward, but we have solid timelines
  • Hurley – Info available on NRC website
  • Hurley – Vast majority of curies from decommissioning will end up in compact facility?
    • Correct, nonradioactive waste likely goes to landfills
  • Saudek – How does the build out of capacity compare to what WCS expected 10 years ago?
    • Expectation was each phase of build capacity would last 5 years, has lasted much longer than that
  • Saudek – Not clear to me how nuclear plant closures affect low level waste
    • Many variables, incl. improved waste minimization, NRC concentration averaging
    • What happened with BRC moving normal waste to landfills was significant
    • Looking at different landscape than what we saw 10 years ago
  • Saudek – If Vermont Yankee hadn’t closed, would have had more or less waste? Not sure that decommissioning increases waste
    • Extremely low contaminated concrete etc. is higher, but not necessarily for other sources

Item 9. Chairman’s Report on Compact Commission Activities

Brandon Hurley, Chair

  • Low Level Radioactive Waste Forum on October 13th & 14th, a few of the TLLRWDCC members will be on a panel
  • Continue to work on management rule with Forum, Forum is headed in the right direction
  • Discusses clarifying FY for expenditures on financial forms, updating mileage forms, etc.
  • Budget is less for the new fiscal year, need to watch spending
  • Gov included high level waste issue during 2nd Special Session, put certain limitations on TCEQ and transport of high level waste in the state; not in the purview of the Commission as it deals with low level waste, but will continue to watch

Item 10. Executive Director’s Report

Stephen Raines, Executive Director

  • Going through Sunset review process, as process begins we will have review team from Sunset to observe TLLRWDCC meetings & will be contacting members
  • Hurley – Sunset process will hopefully lead to positive change & improvements in operations & authority
  • Will likely see activity shortly after October 1

Item 11. Rules Committee Report

  • Needed to add contingency definitions to TAC rules, will be showing up
  • Regarding management rule, will need to look at definition of generator and possibly further clarify
  • Contingency plan would clearly state ability to hold emergency meeting, issue export permits; will be working to bring rules into alignment to allow
  • Also considering whether emergency imports could or should be authorized
  • Management rule has received greatest amount of work by the Rules Committee; low level waste enters the state that doesn’t go to the compact facility, these importers would need to enter into an agreement with TLLRWDCC to report on amounts, etc.
  • Looking at other forms needed to capture this info and clarify info needing to be reported and not reported
  • Also considering enterable changes for reporting
  • Also considering bringing companies importing waste for consolidation or recycling, looking at how these companies may need to interact with TLLRWDCC as some of this waste could be low-level radioactive waste

Item 12. Capacity Committee Report

  • Hurley – Capacity Committee is important, protecting capacity is part of the mission, need to start thinking about protection process
  • Morris – Found an IT consultant, metrics are being developed as an in-compact tool to inform decision making; developing input forms to allow data to be collected and used to build metrics

Item 13. Discussion and possible changes of dates and locations of future Commission meetings in 2021.

  • Next meeting is Oct. 28, then Dec. 9; often December meeting is canceled depending on level of business
  • First meeting of 2022 is Feb. 3