ACTION ALERT! Urge TX State House Members: Vote NO on Bad Radioactive Waste Bill -- HB 2692 could return to House Floor!

(See a larger/more legible version of the graphic above, posted online here.)

ACTION ALERT!

Urge TX State House of Reps. Members to Vote NO on Bad Radioactive Waste Bill -

HB 2692 could still return to TX State House Floor!

Dear Beyond Nuclear Members/Supporters in Texas,  Thank you very much to all who have already taken action on this. Below is the most recent action alert from Karen Hadden of the SEED Coalition in Austin (Sustainable Energy and Economic Development). Please take further action, based on her alert below, and please spread the word to other Texans! Thank you! ---Kevin Kamps, Radioactive Waste Specialist, Beyond Nuclear Urgent Action Alert The bad radioactive waste vendor bill, HB 2692, [could still return to the State of Texas House Floor].  Please help right away with calls and/or emails to Speaker Phelan, your Representative and others! The companion bill, SB 1046, could come up quickly in the Senate too, so calls and emails to Senators are also a great idea. [See: < https://senate.texas.gov/directory.php >] A list of House emails that you can copy and paste (minus Brooks Landgraf, the bad bill's sponsor) is included at the end of this email.  You can copy and paste the message below as you'd like! Be sure to sign your name and list any organizational affiliation you'd like. Thanks and best wishes, Karen Hadden 512-797-8481  (PS The language in the high-level radioactive waste portion leaves out Greater-Than-Class C waste - a major part of the very dangerous, deadly waste that would come in along with Spent Nuclear Fuel if WCS gets their license. The omission in the Landgraf bill is no accident! We've suggested it be added in, and the answer was a definite NO.)  -------------- Dear Speaker Phelan and House Members,  Please vote NO on HB 2692, a bad radioactive waste vendor bill. Environmental groups and oil companies agree on this issue!  WON'T WORK: The proposal to bring high-level radioactive waste to Texas must be halted, but this bill fails to accomplish the goal due to loopholes and federal preemption. Waste Control Specialists' (WCS) President told the Senate Natural Resources Committee that the company is NOT willing to withdraw their federal license application. While the language in this bill sounds good, it won't stop WCS' dangerous Consolidated Interim Storage plans to bring in 40,000 tons of very hot nuclear reactor waste and store it for decades in Texas.  Resolutions have been passed opposing high-level radioactive waste by Dallas, Bexar, El Paso, Midland and Nueces Counties and by the cities of San Antonio, Midland and Denton, representing 5.4 million Texans.    MASSIVE FINANCIAL LOSSES TO TEXAS: The bill includes massive giveaways to a private company that would cost the state hundreds of millions of dollars and perhaps over a billion dollars over time. We'll need that money when it comes time to clean up contamination. The existing surcharges should stay in place so we can collect this money from companies in other states. The surcharge reduction in this bill would hurt Texas.  SHREDS SAFETY REQUIREMENTS: It loosens safety requirements for disposal of low-level radioactive waste at the existing Waste Control Specialists site and removes antitrust requirements.  Special thanks to those of you who voted NO in the Environmental Regulation and Calendars Committees. Thanks so much. Please vote NO!  dade.phelan@house.texas.gov,  abel.herrero@house.texas.gov, alex.dominguez@house.texas.gov,  alma.allen@house.texas.gov, ana-maria.ramos@house.texas.gov, ana.hernandez@house.texas.gov, andrew.murr@house.texas.gov, angie.button@house.texas.gov, ann.johnson@house.texas.gov, armando.walle@house.texas.gov, art.fierro@house.texas.gov, barbara.gervin-hawkins@house.texas.gov, ben.leman@house.texas.gov, brad.buckley@house.texas.gov, briscoe.cain@house.texas.gov, bryan.slaton@house.texas.gov, candy.noble@house.texas.gov, carl.sherman@house.texas.gov, cecil.bell@house.texas.gov, celia.israel@house.texas.gov, charles.anderson@house.texas.gov, charlie.geren@house.texas.gov, chris.paddie@house.texas.gov, chris.turner@house.texas.gov, christina.morales@house.texas.gov, claudia.ordazperez@house.texas.gov, cody.harris@house.texas.gov, cody.vasut@house.texas.gov, cole.hefner@house.texas.gov, craig.goldman@house.texas.gov, dan.huberty@house.texas.gov, david.cook@house.texas.gov, dennis.paul@house.texas.gov, dewayne.burns@house.texas.gov, diego.bernal@house.texas.gov, donna.howard@house.texas.gov, drew.darby@house.texas.gov, drew.springer@house.texas.gov, dustin.burrows@house.texas.gov, ed.thompson@house.texas.gov, eddie.lucio_iii@house.texas.gov, eddie.morales@house.texas.gov, "Rep. Eddie Rodriguez" <eddie.rodriguez@house.texas.gov>, erin.zwiener@house.texas.gov, ernest.bailes@house.texas.gov, four.price@house.texas.gov, garnet.coleman@house.texas.gov, gary.gates@house.texas.gov, gary.vandeaver@house.texas.gov, geanie.morrison@house.texas.gov, gene.wu@house.texas.gov, gina.hinojosa@house.texas.gov, giovanni.capriglione@house.texas.gov, glenn.rogers@house.texas.gov, greg.bonnen@house.texas.gov, harold.dutton@house.texas.gov, hubert.vo@house.texas.gov, hugh.shine@house.texas.gov, ina.minjarez@house.texas.gov, jacey.jetton@house.texas.gov, jake.ellzey@house.texas.gov, james.frank@house.texas.gov, "Rep. James Talarico" <james.talarico@house.texas.gov>, james.white@house.texas.gov, jared.patterson@house.texas.gov, jarvis.johnson@house.texas.gov, jasmine.crockett@house.texas.gov, jay.dean@house.texas.gov, jeff.cason@house.texas.gov, jeff.leach@house.texas.gov, jessica.gonzalez@house.texas.gov, jim.murphy@house.texas.gov, jm.lozano@house.texas.gov, "Rep. Joseph Deshotel" <joe.deshotel@house.texas.gov>, joe.moody@house.texas.gov, john.bucy@house.texas.gov, john.cyrier@house.texas.gov, john.frullo@house.texas.gov, john.kuempel@house.texas.gov, john.raney@house.texas.gov, john.smithee@house.texas.gov, john.turner@house.texas.gov, jon.rosenthal@house.texas.gov, julie.johnson@house.texas.gov, justin.holland@house.texas.gov, keith.bell@house.texas.gov, ken.king@house.texas.gov, kyle.biedermann@house.texas.gov, kyle.kacal@house.texas.gov, lacey.hull@house.texas.gov, larry.taylor@senate.texas.gov, leo.pacheco@house.texas.gov, lina.ortega@house.texas.gov, liz.campos@house.texas.gov, lyle.larson@house.texas.gov, lynn.stucky@house.texas.gov, mando.martinez@house.texas.gov, "Rep. Mary E. Gonzalez" <mary.gonzalez@house.texas.gov>, maryannperez@house.texas.gov, matt.krause@house.texas.gov, matt.schaefer@house.texas.gov, matt.shaheen@house.texas.gov, mayes.middleton@house.texas.gov, michelle.beckley@house.texas.gov, mike.schofield@house.texas.gov, morgan.meyer@house.texas.gov, nicole.collier@house.texas.gov, oscar.longoria@house.texas.gov, penny.moralesshaw@house.texas.gov, phil.king@house.texas.gov, phil.stephenson@house.texas.gov, philip.cortez@house.texas.gov, rafael.anchia@house.texas.gov, ramon.romero@house.texas.gov, ray.lopez@house.texas.gov, reggie.smith@house.texas.gov, rhetta.bowers@house.texas.gov, richard.raymond@house.texas.gov, robert.guerra@house.texas.gov, ron.reynolds@house.texas.gov, ryan.guillen@house.texas.gov, sam.harless@house.texas.gov, scott.sanford@house.texas.gov, senfronia.thompson@house.texas.gov, sergio.munoz@house.texas.gov, shawn.thierry@house.texas.gov, shelby.slawson@house.texas.gov, sheryl.cole@house.texas.gov, stan.lambert@house.texas.gov, stephanie.klick@house.texas.gov, steve.allison@house.texas.gov, steve.toth@house.texas.gov, tan.parker@house.texas.gov, terry.canales@house.texas.gov, terry.meza@house.texas.gov, terry.wilson@house.texas.gov, todd.hunter@house.texas.gov, tom.craddick@house.texas.gov, tom.oliverson@house.texas.gov, toni.rose@house.texas.gov, tony.tinderholt@house.texas.gov, tracy.king@house.texas.gov, travis.clardy@house.texas.gov, trent.ashby@house.texas.gov, trey.martinezfischer@house.texas.gov, valoree.swanson@house.texas.gov, victoria.neave@house.texas.gov, vikki.goodwin@house.texas.gov, will.metcalf@house.texas.gov, yvonne.davis@house.texas.gov,

Take Act

Update on May 5, 2021 by admin

News Coverage:

"Radioactive Waste Storage Bill Derailed in the Texas House on a Technicality: Some Saw the Legislation as a 'Trojan Horse,' that Would Bring High-Level Radioactive Waste to Texas; But the Bill's Author Disputed that Argument," Corpus Christi Caller Times

Update on May 5, 2021 by admin

Earlier related news coverage:

• News West 9 - Rep. Brooks Landgraf in dispute with the Texas GOP - Author: Jonathan Polasek

• The Gilmer Mirror - Texas Legislators Must Reject Proposal To Lower Human Health & Safety Measures At Nuclear Waste Dump

VICTORY AGAINST “VLLW”! Many public radiation exposures prevented

On December 16, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission admitted defeat on its latest attempt to deregulate so-called Very Low Level Radioactive Waste, and open the floodgates on such wastes being dumped in ordinary landfills, “recycled” into consumer products, incinerated, poured down sewers, etc. This scheme has been attempted many times before, under various names, such as “Below Regulatory Concern.” But this has been one of the hardest won victories against it yet!

Thanks to all the groups which joined our coalition letter, and all the individuals who filed comments with NRC: you helped make this victory possible! We would like to send a special congratulations to Diane D’Arrigo of NIRS, who has helped lead coalition efforts against this, for decades.

10,000 COMMENTS! No nuke waste in landfills!

According to NIRS, nearly 10,000 comments opposing plans to let atomic waste go to regular landfills, incinerators, recycling centers, etc. were submitted against NRC's deregulatory "Very Low-Level Waste" (VLLW) scheme by the Oct. 21 deadline! Thanks to all of you who took action in response to our alert last week! Beyond Nuclear submitted comments, regarding the likelihood that radioactive wastes could simply be dumped at hazardous materials landfills: "Rachel Carson warned about the synergistic effects of radiation and toxic chemicals in her iconic book Silent Spring, credited by many as launching the environmental movement in the early 1960s." Not for the first time, the anti-nuclear movement has resisted the Very Large Lies re: Very Long-Lasting radioactive wastes!

READ MORE.

VLLW: "Very Low Level Radioactive Waste" = Very Large Lies, Very Long Lasting

Beyond Nuclear's comments to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), re: VLLW, due Oct. 21, 2020; we used the NIRS webform to submit our comments, verbatim, other than adding a sentence about Rachel Carson:

Subject: Docket NRC 2020-0065 Transfer of VLL (Radioactive) Waste to Exempt Persons for Disposal

Dear NRC Commissioners and Staff:

I object to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) proposed reinterpretation of the rules which would allow radioactive waste to go to persons and places without radioactive licenses Docket NRC 2020-0065. Do not release radioactive waste to places without nuclear regulatory control. Do not give "specific exemptions" to entities to take radioactive waste, regardless of what other permits they might have for other kinds of waste.

Keep nuclear waste out of our communities, solid and hazardous waste landfills and incinerators, processing and recycling centers. I especially object to sending nuclear waste to hazardous waste sites because those sites are not designed to isolate radioactive materials and the combined health and environmental effects of both hazardous and radioactive materials could be exponentially worse than each on their own. Rachel Carson warned about the synergistic effects of radiation and toxic chemicals in her iconic book Silent Spring, credited by many as launching the environmental movement in the early '60s.

I object to the illegal, immoral way the NRC is trying to effectuate this radical change in radioactive waste policy. NRC is procedurally attempting to bypass normal rulemaking procedures of both NRC and the Administrative Procedures Act; and in practical terms, proposing a change in policy that will make it difficult, or even impossible, for the public or state regulators to track radioactive waste. This so-called "very low-level waste" or VLLW is really a very large lie about nuclear waste, as it could result in release of intensely radioactive waste despite NRC’s claimed "intent." The proposal is clearly designed to circumvent over a dozen state laws requiring regulatory control over all levels of radioactive waste in their states.

Fortunately for a few of us, some states will not allow the release of nuclear waste to regular trash, recycling, incinerators or hazardous facilities. But for the majority of the country, it will be virtually impossible to track what happens with potentially ALL of the nuclear power waste other than irradiated (spent) fuel. In fact, once NRC puts this interpretation in place, states could be able to virtually deregulate radioactive waste disposal as well, meaning that the concerned public must be ever-vigilant to every action of both federal and state regulators who could be releasing nuclear waste with no public notice.

NRC is proposing to allow same amount of radioactive emissions from unregulated "specific exempt" sites as from operating nuclear power reactors and waste dumps. This is unacceptable and furthermore, no amount of "millirems" is acceptable because they are not verifiable, enforceable or necessary.

Reject the VLLW proposal and all others that would release nuclear waste from radioactive controls. Keep nuclear waste under lock and key and out of solid and hazardous waste sites, whether landfills, incinerators, or recycling.

Sincerely,

Kevin Kamps
Radioactive Waste Specialist
Beyond Nuclear
7304 Carroll Avenue, #182
Takoma Park, Maryland 20912

Update on October 21, 2020 by admin

Here is the introduction NIRS put at the top of their webform for sending comments to NRC:

Tell the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Your Senators: NO nuclear waste in your local landfill

The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is trying to slip a big one past us: They want to do away with the need for nuclear licenses to dump nuclear power waste. In other words, there would be no more regulatory controls over Very Long-Lasting Waste (VLLW).

The NRC wants to let nuclear waste go to your local landfill if the landfill operator wants it—without telling you. They would be glad to send it to hazardous waste sites not fit for nuclear waste as well, making those dumps even more hazardous. It could end up in recycling, reuse or other waste streams, too.

As the nearly 100 nuclear power reactors close in the decade to come, their owners want to save money by dumping thousands of tons of radioactive garbage–concrete, metal, soil, asphalt, equipment, pumps, pipes, plastics and more–by pretending it is not radioactive. Don’t let them get away with it. Tell the NRC and your senators you say NO to VLLW and deregulation of nuclear waste.

Update on October 21, 2020 by admin

NIRS NEWS RELEASE--Thousands Oppose Nuclear Waste Going to Regular Landfills

For Immediate Release--Contact

Diane D'Arrigo, Radioactive Waste Project Director 

Nuclear Information and Resource Service

dianed@nirs.org; 202-841-8588

https://www.nirs.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Telebrief_VLLW-landfills_2020-07-15.mp3

Thousands Oppose Plan to Let Atomic Waste Go to Regular Landfills,

Incinerators, Recycling

October 21, 2020 Nearly 10,000 comments were submitted by today's deadline to the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) against its plan to deliberately allow nuclear waste, mainly from nuclear power reactors, to go to regular garbage dumps and other places that do not have radioactive licenses.

The proposal, NRC-2020-0065, Transfer of Very Low Level Waste to Exempt Persons for Disposal (VLLW), has been renamed by opponents Very Large Lies about Very Long-Lasting nuclear Waste.

NRC proposes to "reinterpret" its own rules that have always required radioactive waste to go to places with a nuclear license. NRC would allow massive amounts of the radioactive concrete, soil, metal, wood, plastic, asphalt, equipment, piping, resins, chemicals, oil, rubble, demolition waste and reactor parts from nuclear power to go out with the regular trash to any place NRC grants a "specific exemption."  It could  go to hazardous waste sites that are not designed for radioactive waste making them much more dangerous. It can take years to get a nuclear license, and there are four licensed sites in the U.S., in Washington, Utah, South Carolina, and Texas.

There is no requirement for public notice, no verifiable or enforceable limits and, despite NRC mislabeling the waste VLLW, the waste could be very radioactive and long-lasting with dozens of cancer-causing radionuclides like plutonium-239, cesium-137 and strontium-90.

The "exempt" landfills would be allowed to expose the public to as much radiation as operating nuclear power reactors and licensed nuclear waste sites--a level that can give cancer to 1 in every 500 people exposed over their lifetimes, according to Environmental Protection Agency calculations.

The opposition comes from entities rarely in agreement--national, regional and local public interest and environmental groups; waste management organizations; state officials who certify solid and hazardous waste sites and are responsible for air and water quality; state and regional agencies and organizations responsible for nuclear waste; local townships; a labor union; a radioactive waste company that took over a decade to get an NRC license; national organizations of state nuclear officials and regulators; environmental justice groups supporting residents of communities around existing solid and hazardous waste sites; and thousands of individuals.

Those commenters oppose the proposal for many of the same reasons. The NRC is trying to bypass normal rules for changing federal regulations: NRC claims it is merely "reinterpreting" longstanding regulations, not actually changing them. After 80 years of requiring anyone possessing manmade nuclear waste to have a license authorizing them to store or dispose of radioactive materials and waste, the NRC wants to authorize it to go to places without a license by changing the guidance, not the actual rule.

Many oppose shifting liability and responsibility to landfills that don't have protections for nuclear waste, nor the knowledge, equipment or experience to manage, monitor and control it. Some groups argue that licensed sites should increase their protections--but instead NRC would weaken protections with this proposal. Licensed nuclear waste sites could actually lose business if the waste goes to regular trash instead of into their trenches. One company supports the change because it runs non-nuclear landfills that could take much of the radioactive waste. The new interpretation would "streamline" (do away with) the case-by-case analysis needed for exemptions to dump at their sites.

There is no definition, limit, or enforceable description on the kinds or amounts of radwaste to be let out of regulatory control. While some in the industry want NRC to define a new category of radioactive waste that could be so released, the majority of commenters do not want any amount of nuclear waste to be released from regulatory control.  They say, the nuclear industry created it--keep it regulated.

There is even a question as to whether the "exempt" sites could import foreign nuclear materials or waste, referred to as "transboundary" waste.

The change could also confuse and violate U.S.  Interstate Radioactive Waste Compacts' authority over moving waste within the U.S.

“It is outrageous that the Trump Administration is trying to make us all “glow-in-the-dark” before he leaves office by de-regulating nuclear waste," states Jane Williams, executive director of California Communities Against Toxics. “These de-regulated materials find their way into the scrap metal stream and from there enter into our homes in metal consumer products.”

"Since there is no safe level of radiation exposure, all industrially generated nuclear waste needs to be isolated, not dispersed into landfills, air, water and possibly even recycled consumer goods," Diane D'Arrigo of Nuclear Information and Resource Service stated. “The big concern is the radioactive danger to current and future generations and the unlimited amount of radioactivity released to the environment. Most commenters don't like that there is no public notice or opportunity to even know if their local landfill gets ‘exempt’ authorization from NRC.”

"This is not the first or last time the nuclear industry and its regulatory agencies have tried to let manmade radioactive waste out of control--to go to places that are not licensed for nuclear materials," D'Arrigo said. "They keep changing the name so it looks like a different plan, but the bottom line is the same--nuclear power makes more waste than it can afford to isolate. From 1986 to 1992 it was ‘Below Regulatory Control’ or BRC but Congress rejected and overturned the BRC policies. Then it was called ‘deminimus.’ The Department of Energy tried ‘Beneficial Reuse’ of nuclear weapons radioactive metals and wastes. In Tennessee. it is Bulk Survey for Release (BSFR). Every time the public has found about these proposals-in the making, they have fought and stopped them. The only way to get this passed is to sneak it through.  And that is what the NRC is attempting with its VLLW plan.” 

Dan Hirsch, Committee to Bridge the Gap, former director of the Stevenson Nuclear Program at University of California Santa Cruz and nuclear expert commented, "The NRC seems intent on changing its own name to Nuclear DEregulatory Commission."

"This proposal is sure to spawn fly-by-night dump operations on vacant lots, in urban renewal excavations, and on brownfield sites of old factories," said Terry Lodge, Toledo-based environmental attorney. "As usual, the poor and most vulnerable populations will be the collateral damage from this dark atom that was supposed to save us."

If the vast majority of the ~10,000 commenters get their way, this VLLW plan will go into the waste dump.

--30--

An audio teleconference on VLLW featuring each of the quoted experts can be accessed at

https://www.nirs.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Telebrief_VLLW-landfills_2020-07-15.mp3

Update on October 22, 2020 by admin

Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) also put out a press release:

https://www.peer.org/deregulation-rad-waste-disposal-plows-ahead/

Deregulation of Rad Waste Disposal Plows Ahead - PEER.org The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is deregulating disposal of radioactive waste, allowing commercial nuclear reactors to dump radioactive waste, except spent fuel, in local garbage landfills.  www.peer.org

TELL NRC & CONGRESS: No nuke waste in landfills!

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is planning a very dangerous change to the way radioactive waste is handled. Some man-made nuclear waste, mainly from the nuclear power industry, is very long-lasting and dangerous to human health and the environment. Disregarding this danger, the NRC proposes to let regular landfill operators dispose of this deceptively labeled “very low-level” radioactive waste (VLLW) by authorizing them as "specific exempt." This would almost certainly result in nuclear waste leaks into our water, air, crops, and communities.

By the Oct. 21 deadline, use NIRS’s webform to tell the NRC and your members of Congress: Don’t dump radioactive waste into our landfills or any other places that are "exempt" from nuclear controls.