The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has its full five members for the first time since 1992. President Clinton named Dr. Nils Diaz and Edward McGaffigan, Jr. to the Commission in July; they began work in August.
Dr. Diaz was a professor of nuclear engineering at the University of Florida and Director of the Innovative Nuclear Space Power and Propulsion Institute for the Ballistic Missile Defense Initiative. He also has been a consultant to Spain's nuclear regulatory commission.
Edward McGaffigan was a senior policy advisor to Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) and a former science attache to the U.S. Embassy in Moscow.
California: Utility deregulation and restructuring are on the way. Utilities already are preparing--slashing costs and, in many cases, nuclear safety--for the new era of electricity competition. Anti-nuclear and environmental activists had better get ready too, lest the experience of California is repeated nationwide.
Governor Pete Wilson September 23 signed a bill, passed unanimously by the state legislature, to restructure the state's utility industry and promote competition.
Despite its widespread support, the new law appears to be a disaster for ratepayers and the environment.
For example, it allows the state's utilities to collect all of their "stranded costs," or, as the California Public Utilities Commission calls them "utility-related uneconomic costs." Uneconomic is right, these costs are actually nearly $30 billion in nuclear plant construction costs for Diablo Canyon, San Onofre and Palo Verde. California ratepayers will have to pay these costs in full under an accelerated schedule--in the next five years. Some analysts estimate these charges alone will make up a third of the average residential electric bill, even for those who choose to purchase electricity from non-nuclear sources.
After 2001, when their reactors are paid off, the nuclear utilities will have to compete on a more even playing scale. This will, of course, encourage the utilities to cut costs just about the time these reactors reach the ranks of the prematurely aging and need greater maintenance and spending. It's a nuclear safety nightmare that could be repeated across the country.
Had California chosen not to allow these uneconomical "stranded costs" to be passed on to consumers, the utilities probably would have had to close their reactors next year--a far better outcome for all concerned.
This scenario will play out in state after state over the next several years, and possibly in Congress next session as well. Activists need to bone up on their utility economics and on how to influence their state public utility commissions and legislatures.
NIRS is now beginning work on new materials to help activists in this process.
New Jersey: 133,000 gallons of contaminated water September 19 spilled into Oyster Creek, which runs next to the reactor of the same name. The incident occurred when reactor water accidentally was fed into a water system that discharges into the creek, and caused elevated radiation levels in the water. It took plant workers almost 24 hours to realize what had occurred.
Texas: Formation of a Texas/Maine/Vermont "low-level" waste compact may be stalled in Congress, but efforts to turn West Texas into a national dumping ground for radioactive and hazardous waste are well underway.
Not only is Texas moving ahead with licensing proceedings for the proposed Sierra Blanca commercial "low-level" radioactive waste dump, but up the road a piece--not far by Texas standards--two companies are attempting to build separate radioactive and mixed radioactive/hazardous waste dumps.
A little-known company called Waste Control Specialists (WCS) is now building the Disneyland of hazardous waste sites in Andrews County along the New Mexico state line. Already, WCS has secured permits from the EPA for landfill "disposal" of all types of hazardous wastes at a 10,000,000 cubic-yard "common hole" or landfill; two 637,000 cubic-yard "condo repositories" for those who'd like to segregate their waste; and warehouse storage facilities for up to 5,000 drums of dioxin materials or other hazardous waste.
Not only that, but WCS envisions kind of a toxic waste theme park, with the landfill, "condos," and warehouses literally surrounded by university, private, and government waste technology research centers. Already, Battelle Memorial Institute and Texas A&M University have signed up.
But potentially exposing the people of Andrews County to dioxins and other toxics apparently isn't enough. Though the hazardous site is still under construction, WCS is already moving to its next step. It is seeking permission to also store "low-level" radioactive waste and by-product materials including mine and mill tailings, as well as NARM and NORM waste and other by-product materials (perhaps depleted uranium?).
Apparently WCS is attempting to become a national dumping ground for "low-level" radioactive waste from the Department of Energy nuclear weapons complex as well as other non-utility generated radioactive materials.
Meanwhile, Envirocare, which runs a dump for NARM/NORM and some other "low-level" radioactive waste in Utah, September 26 announced that it plans to apply to the State of Texas to build a new "low-level" and mixed radioactive/hazardous waste dump--also in Andrews County.
There appears to be some bad blood between the two companies, and Envirocare's press release takes great pains to point out that it "historically has been committed to ensuring that all applicable legal and regulatory requirement have been met, and will not seek through technical legal means to escape any such requirements."
WSC apparently is trying to argue that it only needs a permit from the federal Department of Energy to store radioactive waste, not a permit from the state of Texas.
Obtaining a permit from Texas would require open public hearings--something Envirocare apparently welcomes but WSC would rather avoid.
In any event, the environmental future of Andrews County--and eastern New Mexico--appears rather dim at this point.