- It could be just a matter of time before high-level nuclear waste makes its way to the Permian Basin to be stored in Andrews County.

This could sound like a story you've heard before years ago, when Andrews became the site for disposal of low-level radioactive waste.

But this is different.

What is very likely to receive approval this fall is a proposal to store high-level nuclear waste in Andrews County.

Low-level waste, which is currently disposed of in Andrews County includes items such as lab equipment, cleaning materials, personal protective equipment, and naturally occurring radioactive waste from oil and gas operations.

What's different is the proposal before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on which a ruling is expected this fall, would make the Permian Basin, Andrews, and perhaps Lee County, New Mexico, the site of high-level nuclear waste for all of the United States.

The proposal calls for the Andrews facility to be the site of high-level nuclear waste.

In other words spent nuclear fuel rods, up to 40,000 metric tons from decommissioned nuclear power plants across the United States.

The application is for temporary storage of the high-level waste until the United States secures a permanent site.

So tonight we ask, should the Permian Basin store the nation's high-level nuclear waste?

I'm Becky Ferguson, and this is One Question.

(upbeat music) Should the Permian Basin store the nation's high-level nuclear waste?

Governor Abbott opposes high-level nuclear waste storage in Texas.

And we'll hear from numerous additional elected officials throughout the program.

There is support and Andrews and opposition in other parts of the basin.

Waste Control Specialists currently operates the low-level radioactive waste site in Andrews.

In recent years, they have partnered with Orano USA, a Maryland company which decommissions nuclear power plants to form Interim Storage Partners, or ISP.

ISP would build and operate the proposed high-level nuclear storage facility next to the existing facility in Andrews County.

Tonight, we will hear from area leaders.

Who we won't hear from, are officials of Waste Control Specialists, Interim Storage Partners, or Orano USA, the folks making the application to bring the nation's high-level nuclear waste to Andrews.

Over a period of more than a month, One Question left numerous phone messages with the companies which were not returned, visited the Waste Control Specialists office, which was locked, likely because of COVID, and spoke to an exchanged repeated emails, with a public relations spokesman, representing the companies.

The spokesman declined or ignored our request over a period of a month, to provide a representative for interviews, or arrange for a tour of the WCS storage facility in Andrews County.

We spoke with Tommy Taylor and Monica Perales of Faskin Oil & Ranch.

What is different about what's going on at WCS now than what it was originally licensed for back in the 1990s.

- Early in the nineties, there was a developer named Harold Simmons, and he's the one that started Waste Control Specialists.

And they had the idea, of making a hazardous waste pit in this area.

And then later on, they decided to make it a low-level waste site.

And my parents lived in Andrews at the time, and it was very controversial.

The county floated a bond for $75 million, so when they went out to vote about it, it passed by four votes.

- Four.

- At the time they told the community, a lot of people were asking well, it was hazardous waste, now it's low-level waste, what's next?

And they said, this is it.

We promise this is all it's ever gonna be.

And here we are just a few years later, and they're trying to license the site for everything.

The low-level waste is buried.

So it's encased in cement and concrete.

The high-level waste will just sit out on a parking lot.

And once it gets here, we don't see it ever moving again.

- Are there other sites in the United States where high-level nuclear waste is stored or proposed to be stored?

- All the spent fuel rods, the high-level waste, once they come out of the fuel cycle, they're put in a cooling pond and they cool off for five years, and when they cool off, and they get down to about 600 degrees Fahrenheit, they can move them into a dry cask.

All these dry cask are onsite at the power plants now.

The federal government, had committed to burying this waste in a deep geologic repository, and they were supposed to start taking that waste in 1998.

So here we are in 2021, we're no closer now, than we were 25 years ago.

They had started developing Yucca mountain, which is in Nevada.

And it's an igneous rock, there's no other uses there.

And the government spent $14 billion building that facility and Nevada stopped it.

Harry Reid, the Senator Harry Reid, and President Obama stopped that site.

So there's no place to go.

But it's very clear, this material was meant to be taken from the power plant to a deep geologic repository.

So they're looking around for a place to store it on an interim basis, and interim- - Interim meaning?

- A long time.

The first license period is 40 years.

And every extension of that is 40 years.

- So there's, am I right, that there's an application right now before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to permit the Andrews plant to accept high-level nuclear waste?

- Right, there's two permits.

One is the site at Andrews, and the other is the site in Southeast New Mexico.

Both of those sites are within the bounds of the Permian Basin oil and gas field.

- Okay, well, I'm aware that Faskin is very opposed to the Andrew site, and I assume the Lee County site too, why are y'all opposed?

- We're worried about the material traveling across the United States and ending up here, and never moving again.

We're worried about transportation issues, you've seen all the train wrecks right here in Midland Odessa Monahans, we're also worried about terroristic activity.

The Permian has brought the United States to a point where we're energy independent, a point we never thought we could achieve.

But there's a lot of people in the middle East, are not happy that we're producing our own oil and gas.

We're talking about 500 million pounds of high-level waste, and it's never been done in the history of mankind.

This stuff is really, really dangerous, super toxic, and you're gonna site it all within the Permian Basin?

That is the energy security for our country, and our allies, and our States.

Why would we take a risk like that?

Of all the places in the United States you could site this material, this is the worst idea, and it's no different here.

We're sitting on the largest oil and gas deposit on planet earth, right here in the Permian.

Why would you take any risk in doing that?

That material gets moved here, this is gonna be the defacto permanent repository.

This material was not designed to set out in the open, in perpetuity.

It was designed to set in these casks temporarily, until the government can burry it in a deep geologic repository.

Setting it out in the open is not the right idea.

And then if you ever do move it, say in a hundred years, you finally come up with a plan.

What's it gonna be like to try to pick these casks up after they've sat there out in the elements, and they've corroded, and the salts in the air have pitted the cask, but inside there is the most toxic, radioactive material ever created.

And if it leaks out of that cask, for whatever reason, the cask is punctured, it develops a microfracture, it develops a corrosion pit, breaks in the weld line, It's a 50 mile exposure radius.

So the wind blows out here every day.

And it usually blows from the West to the East, or from the South to the North.

And anybody that's gonna be in that plume, their health is gonna be affected, it's a DNA modifier.

And you know, a lot of people say we're fear mongering, and I say, it's not outside the realm of possibility, and that's what our consultant told us.

And he and some other nuclear scientists wrote a book, a guidebook on storage of spent nuclear fuel.

And at the very front of that guidebook they say in there, don't store this material where you have energy or mineral development.

And so when we called him, we said we wanna know what that means, does that mean not in an oil field?

And so he came out, and he was reluctant at first, because he's pronuclear.

He said, when we were talking about this in our guidebook, we were talking about a very small oil field, or a very small mineral mining operation.

This is huge.

And he said, you're just teeing it up for something bad to happen.

- It's about the health and safety of people who reside in West Texas, reside anywhere near the rail lines.

That's why you have cities across Texas that have passed resolutions saying we don't want this, Dallas, San Antonio, El Paso, they've all passed res... Midland have passed resolutions.

They don't want this coming through their community.

- We support nuclear, we support the wind turbines, we support every kind of diversified energy we can have.

That is good for us as a country.

And this problem has to be solved.

And moving that material to Andrews or to Lee County, New Mexico, is just kicking the can down the road.

And it's just setting us up for more problems.

- What is the status of the application before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission?

- Well, there are two applications currently under technical review before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

There's one for Lee County, New Mexico, And there was one for Andrews County, Texas.

And as it's going through the process of this technical review, you have petitioners such as Faskin, such as the Permian Basin Coalition, that are raising issues, raising contentions, saying, you've got seismicity, you've got geology, you've got threats of terrorism, you've got a lot of issues.

One alone would disqualify these sites, but we have multiple issues that we've raised.

So we're going through this process, but the NRCs job is to get to yes.

They wanna be rid of the waste at all those utilities all over, especially on the East coast, They wanna send it somewhere.

And so it's likely that they will be licensed by the fall.

- And so if that happens, what recourse does a Faskin and the Permian Basin Coalition, and other opponents have.

We'll see them in court.

- Yeah, if it gets approved, then we can file suit in a court of appeals in Washington DC, and we intend to do that.

- We're visiting with Charlie Falcon, the Andrews County judge.

And we're gonna talk about WCS, and their application to change from accepting low-level nuclear waste material, to accepting high-level nuclear waste material.

And I want to know what your thoughts are on the application.

- I'll start off with saying, as of right now, there is no change.

There is talk, I know that the application has been submitted.

I do know that WCS, what they've said all along is, what our constituents want, what does Andrews want?

They have been a great corporate partner with the county.

The county receives a portion of the gross sales, which is a nice thing, because we can have extra amenities for our constituents, for our people, and it don't cost them a taxpayer dollars, which is a great thing.

We are currently, we're in the process of opening up a new food pantry that was just built.

The food pantry cost us about $1.2 million, again and that's not on our tax payer.

- So that was something that WCS did for y'all.

- They didn't do it for us, What happened is, again, we receive a portion of their sales.

The state of Texas receives a portion as well.

In that money that we received from them, we call it the legacy fund.

That legacy fund, is again money generated from WCS that is given to us, a percentage is given to Andrews County.

It is given to our community, not just the county.

- Certainly there's a difference between low-level nuclear waste, and high-level nuclear waste.

Do you have any concerns about safety for the community?

- For the community, for the area, of course I do.

I am concerned about our entire region, just simply because, and it's not from nuclear waste, it's just my concern for our region.

I love West Texas.

What we have here with WCS, it started out low-level.

Again, the application is in for high-level.

There's two different ways to look at it.

One is a personal level, which everybody always has their personal opinion, and the second, what I do for a living.

My personal interest is, I'm not scared of it, I'm not concerned.

When you have a little bit of diversification in your economy, it doesn't hurt.

WCS has been a good thing for us to this point, with the low-level, with our partnership, it's been good.

So when you start thinking about nuclear, it frightens a lot of people, because when you think of that, you automatically think of the worst, nuclear, oh my God.

But at one of the meetings that they had, I stood up and I spoke about education.

Coming from the field of education, I'm not afraid to crack open a book and try to figure out what's good and what's not.

But personally, no, I'm not afraid of it.

It does give us the opportunity to diversify our economy to some extent.

- WCS has indicated that they will have a very fortified security situation when they start accepting high-level nuclear waste.

- Yes ma'am.

- Okay.

- That was what was told to me.

And again, I was not the judge at that time, so yes.

And that's what, as a judge now, that's what I would hold them to, is to ensure that we had a facility, and the manpower and the firepower, to be able to protect that.

That facility would have to be well taken care of.

- The Ogallala aquifer, I think the WCS material, indicates that it is not underneath the storage facility, but there are other folks that say, yes it is underneath the water facility.

If there is some sort of a leak, it contaminating the water, not just for Andrews, but those aquifers are huge.

What are your thoughts on that?

- I was a county ag agent here, and I'm very well aware of the Ogallala aquifer, and no, the Ogallala does not run underneath their facility.

Of maps that I've seen and that I've studied before, they do not run in that direction.

So I will say that there's, again to my understanding, you've got about 35 to 40 miles from where the aquifer is to where WCS sets.

- You have a lot of landowners in Andrews County that, like I think Faskin Oil & Minerals owns a lot of property here, all the Cowden's own a lot of property, is that a concern when those ranchers come to you and say we're not interested in having this high-level nuclear waste stored here?

- Well, first of all, I've never had any of the ranchers come talk to me.

I did have a council for a Faskin come talk, came in with an individual that does oppose, but that was the end of our conversation.

They're always welcome to come talk to me, but I have not.

And again, I am very involved in the field of agriculture here in Andrews County, in the ranching, and none of the ranchers have come to me to talk to me about their concerns, to see this move forward.

- Are you aware of any constituents or any groups of constituents in Andrews that have reservations about the storage facility?

- Yes, ma'am, there's about five of them, five or six people that have addressed that to me, and said, hey we don't want that there.

And I'd say, I'd count them on one hand, that's where the number five comes from, because just in conversation I've had, but there has not been a great deal of opposition, with the exception of the handful.

Somebody said, well how many, if you had a hundred signatures on a petition, would that change your mind about, again, what we're talking about?

And I said, it'd take more than that.

I said, it'd take the majority.

And he said, what if it was a thousand?

I said, I got 12,000 voters, It would have to be the majority.

So if I had the majority of the people come and say, no, we don't want this, and again, it's Andrews County, and I don't mean to sound selfish there, but I only represent this county, I don't represent everybody from around the surrounding areas.

As a judge, I will try to diversify our economy as much as we possibly can, so that way we're not completely dependent on oil because I was raised in the Oldfield, and we've lived the booms and we've lived the bust.

And if there's anything that I can do to lessen that for our community, then that's what I do.

- I'm interviewing Elaine Magruder, who is a rancher.

And I'm interested in why are you interested in the storage facility in Andrews.

- Well, to me the long-term risks are, number one the people being harmed, and number two the water.

Water is so critical to our area because we don't have big rivers.

And so the playa lakes through our area are really the recharge for the Ogallala aquifer.

And I strongly believe that some of the playas in the area of this site will be affected.

And if there is a problem there and the water gets infected, it doesn't just stay localized.

The Ogallala is a very large source of our water, and so it would affect more than just Andrews County.

- Is the Ogallala aquifer underneath this site?

- Yes, of course it is.

One of the things that I read on their website, and I thought it was a tweak of word, they said that this 600 foot red bed was a great place to put it because it's nearly impermeable, and they use this word nearly.

Well, I'm sorry, We all as ranchers know that it is permeable.

That's a big concern.

- What is your particular personal interest?

- Well, my great grandfather came to West Texas from Palo Pinto County in 1893, John M. Cowden, and founded the John M. Cowden & Sons Cattle Company.

And my granddad was Bam Cowden.

And the ranch spanned from Winkler, Andrews, and Ector County up into New Mexico, Southeast Corner of New Mexico.

And they ran cattle.

The last big drive they did, they ran 40,000 head of cattle from West Texas, all the way into Fort worth.

And my granddad was 13 years old at the time.

And so there is a lot of history in that area.

But also it's getting in relationship with the land.

As a rancher, you learn the land through good times and bad times, and you learn it through drought and you learn the land through rainy seasons, and you get to see it flourish, and you get to see it flounder.

And one of the reasons that they wanted, this company, WCS, wants to come out here is because it's arid, and the population is limited.

Well, even though it's arid, and the population is limited, we still have value.

And I think that we have to consider the longevity of what's been through here, and what supported our economy and ranching and oil and gas.

And so I go back to that same notion of a short term economic gain, for potential long-term problems.

- Did you have a problem with the storage facility when it was low-level nuclear waste?

- I had problems with both of it.

And the reason is it's the camel's nose under the tent.

You've seen this in other places, that's the modus operandi.

They come in in low-level, they get that permitting, then they go on to permitting for high-level, and then they say, well, it's temporary.

Well, that's not the case.

They just keep going and going, it's not gonna be temporary.

- What have you done toward defeating the application?

- Well, I've been to some of the hearings, and my eyes were really opened.

I felt like the panel that, we listened to questions and so forth and they took questions from the audience, I thought some of the questions were incredibly ignorant, and I thought that they downplayed our capacity to understand.

And they dumbed the whole thing down.

And I was very frustrated at those hearings, listening to how some of the panelists reacted.

It was not a pleasant thing to sit through.

- And you're talking about the Nuclear Regulatory Commission panel.

- Yes.

Again, if you look at the size of the current facility, and their capacity to grow, that is also disturbing.

They have a 600 acre site now, but they have 1300 acres and an additional 14,000 acres to expand to.

So I think in their minds that, they will make it through to having this site.

And then what happens is the citizens have to watch where things are not happening appropriately and report it accordingly.

And they have to be the police, they have to be the ones to police it.

I think they are passing along a problem and making it somebody else's problem.

It's kicking the can down the road, we've seen it all of our lives.

Those people are smart.

They can figure it out to store it in place, and to take care of it in place.

I keep going back to the same notion that I'd finish on.

And that is that short term economic gain.

That is third world mentality.

And I understand that power of money.

And sometimes it's the root of evil.

And so I think we have to be very careful what we're being fed.

- Well welcome, Steve Eggleston, the city manager of Andrews.

Thank you so much for joining us.

And I wanted to ask you, what is the city's position, on the proposal to store high-level nuclear waste in Andrews County?

- I don't think the city, if you're talking about the city government, I don't think the city government has really taken official stance on that.

Our mayor has publicly stated that she'll follow the lead of whatever the citizens want.

And since high-level's never really been an issue that's been brought to the public, it's really never been an issue that's been addressed directly.

- So how will she and the city follow what the citizens want?

How will they will determine what the citizens want?

- The mayor is very hands-on.

She will probably have some public meetings, and then wanna have as many people come in and voice their opinions.

Thus far, we really haven't had a lot of people come forward and voice anything regarding the high-level.

Citizens have been very supportive of the low-level, so.

- Well, the application is currently before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, I'm sure you know, and is expected to be approved in the fall.

So what is the timeline for the city to get input from the citizens?

- We're probably not gonna try and get input from the citizens before September.

We've actually had some meetings with WCS, and this is the direction that WCS was already heading.

Governor Abbott, as you probably are aware, had come out with a letter of non-support for the high-level, and WCS met with us as individual leaders, and basically told us that as long as the state does not want high-level, they will not pursue it.

So if the state doesn't want it, then WCS isn't even pursuing it, so there's really no reasons for the city to have any meetings with the public because WCS isn't pursuing it.

- That's interesting.

I'm not aware that WCS had said that, or that they have withdrawn their application.

Their application is active before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission right now.

- Yeah, I don't know, I don't think they've drawn anything.

They just met with the community leaders about two or three weeks ago, and told us that if the state does not want it or the city does not want it, either one of them, then they would not pursue the high-level waste.

That's what the local leadership was telling us.

- Do you have any concerns about the safety of storing high-level nuclear waste in Andrews County?

- No, not really, not the way they've done it.

If you've ever had the chance to go tour WCS, it's a very secure site, and they have very good people, good geography for everything.

I personally would not have any reservations, and more concerned with all the oil fields, if anything were to happen, if we were ever attacked by foreign source, I would assume it'd be the oil fields that were actually attacked, and not necessarily a nuclear waste site.

- Are you aware of any additional security measures that WCS would use if they did put in high-level nuclear waste?

- No, ma'am, I'm not.

- Well, I really appreciate your visiting with us today.

Is there anything you'd like to add?

- WCS has been a very good corporate citizen for Andrews.

They've employed up to 200 people at one time, and for Andrews, that's quite a few people.

They bring in a high-level of job, usually they have the engineer top quality employee, and they've been very safe over the years, they've been here over 25 years, and no major incidents that I'm aware of, and they are a very good corporate citizen also.

They contribute heavily to a lot of the things that go on in Andrews and make our quality of life a lot better through their efforts and through their contributions.

- The mayor has not taken a particular position, for or against the disposal of high-level nuclear waste in Andrews County, and is waiting to follow the lead of the citizens at some future time, okay.

- Yes, that has been her public comment, that she will, if that issue ever comes forth, she will follow the lead of the citizens, this has been her stance from the very beginning.

- Thank you very much.

- All right, thank you.

- The prospect of storing high-level nuclear waste in Andrews County, also has the attention of Congressman, August Pfluger, who represents a vast region of West Texas, including Andrews Ector, and Midland counties.

We asked Congressman Pfluger for his thoughts on the proposal.

Thank you so much for joining us today.

We're talking about high-level nuclear waste storage that's proposed to go into Andrews County, and I wanna know your thoughts.

- Well, thank you for having me tonight Becky, I really appreciate it.

And yeah, you know the issue there has gotten some public attention lately, I don't support high-level nuclear waste going into this interim facility.

And really the main issue is that when you're talking about interim, the time period on it is 40 or maybe even more years, and that licensure process, which is ongoing, and has been open to the public, it will evaluate the environmental side and the safety side, and of course we're worried about both of those.

But really when it comes down to it, there's a permanent facility that the government planned on having at Yucca mountain, which is in Nevada.

So, we're asking a lot of questions, and meeting with different people and understanding all of the issues and what the process is, and are hopeful that we can get that moving towards its permanent destination, because that's where it was intended to go.

- My understanding is that the proposal is before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission right now, and that decision is anticipated in the fall.

Is that your understanding as well?

- That's our understanding, and they've been doing, the pandemic has made it a little more difficult, but they have been doing some public meetings and there's 40,000 plus comments that they're currently reviewing, on both the environmental and the safety side, which is great to have that amount of participation from the local community.

- The governor has taken a position against it.

Most of the elected officials from West Texas have taken a position against it.

But do I understand correctly that it's a federal decision and not a state decision?

- Well, it's a federal decision that is lodged inside the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

And so it's kind of buried inside that specific branch of the executive government, executive branch.

And so I think that those are the questions that myself, the governor, the state reps are asking is, how can we insert our opinions and make sure that our constituents voices are heard loud and clear?

- What are your concerns related to high-level nuclear waste storage in Texas?

- Well, again, it goes back to the fact that we had a plan and we didn't stick to it.

And that's really the most concerning thing, is there is a difference between the low-level waste that's there, which consists of materials that are used in the handling of the nuclear process.

That could include gloves or protective equipment, and there's a difference between that and then the actual high-level waste, which is spent fuel rods.

And so when it comes to that plan that our government prepared and planned for and set out to do, in Yucca mountain, and we need to stick to that.

- Is there anything you'd like to add related to the topic?

- You know, just say that everyone's voices are important, and your opinions are important, and to get in touch with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and have, they do have periodic hearings and a public forum where they want to hear everyone's voices.

And so I think that's very important to be involved in that and very proud of the amount of people who have taken part in this process thus far, and would encourage you to continue to do so.

- So you would recommend folks to reach out to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and to you, or to the president, to other folks.

- Absolutely, and we're advocating for stopping this high-level of waste coming into the area.

And so our office is taking an active role in that.

And I think reaching out to the NRC is the right venue at this point in time.

- Thank you so much congressmen for taking time, we really appreciate you.

- Thank you for having me tonight.

- We're with Representative Brooks Landgraf of Odessa, and I understand you have introduced a bill related to high-level nuclear waste storage, and tell us what the bill does.

- Well, the bill is very simple in what it does.

The primary objective is to ban the disposal or storage of high-level nuclear waste, or high-level radioactive waste here in the state of Texas.

- Period, by anyone and everyone?

- That's right.

There's potential for commercial storage here in the state, and this is really to address that particular issue.

That being said, there are some nuclear power plants, there are actually two in the state, and if they need to store their own waste on site, this bill doesn't prohibit that.

But there's been quite a bit of talk about whether or not high-level, radioactive waste should be stored at a facility near Andrews, Texas.

And this is really to address that particular issue, to make sure that under the laws of the state, that that would be prohibited.

- Would the laws of the state prohibit it, or would that be a federal government decision?

- Well, when it comes to high-level, and really low-level radioactive waste for that matter, there's always been quite a bit of jurisdiction that the federal government has through the Nuclear Regulatory Agency, but in virtually every case, there has not been storage that's been allowed at the federal level if a state does not consent to it.

And so this bill, if passed into law, would be a very resounding answer to the federal government, that no, Texas does not consent to the storage of high-level radioactive waste within our boundaries.

- Some of the folks in Andrews are supportive of the proposal before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

And of course, I'm sure, you know, there are a lot of folks in the basin that are opposing it because they don't want that in the middle of the largest oil and gas field in the nation.

How do you respond to those different constituencies?

- Well, it's actually, this is a conversation that we've been having for quite some time.

And I do feel like I understand both sides of the issue, but the reality is that we have a wonderful low-level radioactive waste disposal site in Andrews County that's the only one of its kind in Texas, and one of only just a handful across the country.

And they have a very important mission that the state of Texas needs them to fulfill, to store low-level radioactive waste, and they have an impeccable safety record doing that.

And it's important that we make sure that we give them all of the resources that they, in order to be successful with that mission, but anything that deviates from that, whether it's a discussion about high-level waste, just leaving this as an open ended question, I think that original mission very difficult, or it at least makes it harder to accomplish.

And so this really separates these two issues, low-level versus high-level, it eliminates high-level from the discussion by banning it outright, and then allowing the facility and the state to focus on being very good at what we do when it comes to low-level storage.

- Is there anything else you'd like to add on this topic?

- Yeah, this is obviously a sensitive issue, and depending on which generation you're from or a part of, the word radioactive waste can conjure up different meanings.

We do need to have safe places to store low-level and high-level radioactive waste.

I think we're set up very well to store low-level radioactive waste in West Texas, and there's an impeccable safety record that goes along with that.

When it comes to high-level, I just don't think that we are as equipped to do that.

And so I just wanna make sure that we're focusing on what we're really good at doing, and then not worry so much about some of these more certain issues that quite frankly are surrounded by the prospect of disposal and storage of high-level radioactive waste.

- Thank you so much Representative Landgraf.

Good luck to you, appreciate you.

- Thank you Becky, always going to be with you.

- Speaker Craddick, thank you so much for joining me today to talk about high-level nuclear waste storage in Andrews.

And I'd like for you to just tell us what your thoughts are about the proposal.

- The fear by a lot of people, and the skepticism down here is that you could work on the low-level, say you're not gonna have the high-level, but there are ways around it on this bill.

Today, TCEQ oversees it.

And they're basically being, take by the bill that's being sponsored, they're being pretty much taken out of the play.

So they're gonna have a, the facility over there, is not really gonna have a state regulator looking at them which bothers me.

There have been people look at this proposal, and they've said it's just a time bomb waiting to happen if you do this.

- Are you talking about the proposal that's before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, or you're talking about Representative Landgraf's bill?

- Representative Landgraf's bill to move over and just start doing what he wants to do.

And I know he says he wants to do away with high-level waste, and we're gonna make that really easy, we're gonna do a House of Senate concur resolution for the governor to sign, it's being drafted today.

That just says the state doesn't want it, and won't take it, and is not gonna do it.

And that's all you gotta do, and not all this other stuff that's in the bill.

And in the bill itself Becky, today you pay a fee, okay, to have that facility over there if you operate it, and then you pay a fee for the waste you move into it, and the state gets part of that fee, Andrews gets part of that fee.

You may already know this, but the money that the state gets is used for different things.

One thing is it's used, for other waste facilities we have around the state to monitor them, to keep them in good condition, and things like that.

And I think that for the Permian Basin, sitting next to an oil field, they had one of the experts in the whole world, look at all this data, and give them a report on, I think it was on page 27 and it says, one thing you never wanna do is build this by any kind of energy facility, in which it'd be certainly over there, with all the production that's right around Andrews obviously, that people know in West Texas.

So I think there are other places where this could be done.

It bothers a lot of people on whether or not high-level waste will eventually be worked into the situation.

If you read the bill carefully, in the bill it talks about WCS and that's great, but it doesn't say they couldn't transfer this to another company, and they could move the high-level waste in.

And that's a fear for me.

I mean, the people that I represent and I don't represent Andrew's, okay?

And Brooks does and, I represent Odessa, which is right there.

You know and I represent Midland and four other counties surrounding that area.

And I've not had anyone tell me in my counties that they are for this.

I don't think Andrews is the place to be trying to store anything of high-level, or anything that comes out of the reactors, or anything like that.

I know we've got some places in the country but I don't think it's there.

- Do you worry about the safety of the Permian Basin, if high-level nuclear waste is stored in Andrews?

- Absolutely, I do.

And I also fear the safety from this aspect, how are you gonna get it there?

How are you gonna get it to Andrews, Texas?

Are you gonna go through Midland and Odessa, right through the middle of the town?

How are you gonna get there?

So that bothers me.

You can have an explosion of any kind, and I think that's a real problem to look at.

And it's not a fantasy, it's happened.

So it's something to look at.

- Thank you, sir, appreciate you.

- Pleasure, good to see you Becky, I appreciate it.

Thank you.

- Welcome Senator Kel Seliger, thank you so much for joining us.

We're talking about a proposal to store high-level nuclear waste in Andrews County.

And I'm curious about your thoughts on that.

- The thing to understand was this was never conceived to be a high-level, or greater than sea level waste repository.

It was all supposed to be low-level, things that, gloves and tools that may have been used, and glove boxes and things like that.

I believe the current facility is not suitable for high-level waste.

I think Andrews County has a great interest in this, because the county gets paid, as a percentage of the gross to this date, about $13 million.

At some point we have got to quit storing nuclear waste and dispose of it.

And this is not a disposal site, it's a storage site, It is the responsibility of the United States government.

And in long-term, it needs to go somewhere deep, deep underground, the half-life of this waste, high-level waste, is 24,000 years.

And since nobody is gonna be around, like you or me to say, hey, I remember when they put this stuff in storage in Andrews County, it needs to go somewhere never to be seen again.

- As I understand it, there's a permit before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission right now, and it's predicted that they will approve the permit this fall.

- It's not gonna happen, because I don't think the legislature would approve it before any waste can come into the state of Texas in a non-federal location.

It must be proved by legislature Texas.

There's not time to do that in this session, And when 2023 rolls around, they can try it.

I don't detect any great, the things that I've done so far, to approve permits and and license, waste control have been pretty long complex processes.

At this point, nothing can be done before the legislature of 2023.

- So you're confident that we won't be seeing high-level nuclear waste stored in Andrews in the foreseeable future.

- No ma'am.

And I wanna see what the site-wide environmental impact says about high-level waste.

It took a while, and it was a pretty good process, before it was approved for low-level waste.

- Is there anything you'd like to add on the topic?

- The folks in Andrews County have been absolutely wonderful to work with?

There are an awful lot of issues here besides a simple cash flow to Andrews County, which has been most beneficial to this point.

And I think it's time that we call the United States government, to be responsible for things that they've been responsible for years and years and years, and kicking the can down the road on behalf of the United States government is a zero-sum game in my view.

- Thank you Senator Seliger, appreciate you.

- Thank you, it's great to be with you as always.

- Welcome Dr. Dale Klein to One Question.

Dr. Klein is the associate chancellor for research for the UT system, and a professor of Engineering at the University of Texas.

He also served on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission under president Bush and Obama, and as its chairman from 2006 to 2009.

And knowing what you know about high-level nuclear waste, and about the climate and geology in West Texas, do you think Andrews County is a good place to store high-level nuclear waste for the United States?

- The proposal that is being looked at in the Andrews County is very similar to that that's being used at existing nuclear facilities.

So the facility will be safe.

It's more of a policy issue, it is not a safety issue.

- According to the ISP website, the storage would be above ground.

Is that cause for concern?

- Not at all Becky, that's the way it's stored currently at existing operating plants.

These are in robust steel containers, very safe, and the facility will be licensed if approved by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

So that should give your audience and the people of Andrews County confidence that someone is looking at the safe security of that facility, to protect people and the environment.

- Are there any concerns about transporting high-level nuclear waste, spent storage rods via barge or veer rail?

Are there incidents or a prospect of any accident?

- Well, Becky, there's always a chance of accidents.

And what they do is the casks that transport spent fuel are very robust.

Before they can be licensed by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, they have to undergo rigorous testing.

I served on a congressional commission in 1988, 89, which is a long time ago.

And part of that congressional commission was to look at whether there should be a central interim storage facility.

As part of that, we looked at the transportation risks.

And it turns out that the risk is only the fact that you have another truck or another train being used.

The fact that it's carrying spent nuclear fuel is insignificant from a risk perspective.

- So the NRC right now is determining if Andrews County is a safe place for interim storage, interim being up to 40 years, maybe more than 40 years, is that correct?

- That is correct.

The NRC will make a safety determination, on whether the applicant Waste Control Specialists, meets the requirements for a safe, secure facility.

And you're right that, the time is uncertain because right now the Department of Energy is making no progress in my view for a permanent repository.

- So an interim repository could end up being a permanent depository.

- Well, it could be a long time.

For example when I was on a congressional commission, I asked the Department of Energy how they define interim storage.

And their definition was, interim was until I permanent repository was in place.

Now, even though it may take longer, the NRC will ensure that that site is safe, even if it were to go beyond 40 years.

But I think the state of Texas should have some insurances that it will not be a permanent defacto site.

- There are concerns out here, that storing high-level nuclear waste in the Permian Basin is not a good decision because if there were some sort of accident, it would not only be a terrible accident at the plant, but it could shut down production in this huge area that provides oil and gas for the nation.

What are your thoughts on that?

- A very unlikely scenario, these casks are very robust and they're monitored continuously.

It is on the surface, it will not be stored underground.

And as you know, most of the oil and gas is obtained underground and not from the surface.

So even if there were some surface contamination, it should not impact the oil and gas industry.

- So you would be comfortable, with this site being within 40 miles of your home.

- If it is licensed by the NRC, yeah, I would feel safe living next door to it, yes.

- So you have absolute confidence in their judgment?

- Yes, they are a technical regulator, and I was impressed by the quality of the staff.

They've served a long time, and their tagline is protecting people and the environment, and they take that job seriously.

- Let me ask you this, there's a lot of opposition, including our governor, and our congressman, and our senator, and our state rep.

Does it matter what our state folks think, about whether or not it's deposited in Texas?

Is it a federal decision?

- The state does have some responsibility to determine whether it is there, but whether it is safe and whether it is licensed is up to the US NRC.

Frankly, I believe that if that site is licensed, the state should benefit from that economically, for example, like higher education, and so we could say the state should receive funds from that facility to support higher education in regions of Texas.

So there are a lot of policy decisions that can be made on if and when that site were to be in operation.

But the safety and security of the site will be determined on a technical basis, not on a policy.

- Do you have any association with WCS or ISP, or do you still have a relationship with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission?

- No, I have no relations with any of those, none with WCS, none...

I still have colleagues obviously at the NRC that I talk to, but I have no affiliation.

- Thank you so much, Dr. Klein.

Is there anything you'd like to add?

- No, I think the best thing is for people to be informed, understand what the issues, and to make a logical decision, not an emotional one.

But it involves policy in which the state should have some participatory process in it.

- Well, thank you so much for spending time with us today, Dr. Klein, I really appreciate it.

- My pleasure, good luck.

- In a recent hearing before the Texas Environmental Regulation Committee, WCS president Dave Carlson testified.

- So do you have any plans for taking in high-level waste?

Do you have any applications to NRC?

- Right, so we've submitted an application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for interim storage of spent nuclear fuel or used nuclear fuel.

However, one thing, I wanna make absolutely clear, and that we have always said, is that without the consent of the state of Texas, we will not build or operate that facility.

- So are you looking for the consent of the state of Texas?

- I think the governor has been clear on his position on that.

- Thanks.

- As previously mentioned, the company spokesman declined numerous requests to provide a representative to appear on One Question.

A decision on the application to store high-level nuclear waste is expected by fall.

Should the Nuclear Regulatory Commission approve the application, Faskin Oil & Ranch representatives plan to file a lawsuit to block the construction of the new facility.

You can find more information on the proposed storage of high-level nuclear waste in our show notes at basinpbs.org.

There, you will find links to Representative Brooks Landgraf's proposed bill, and the response to that bill from the Permian Basin Land And Royalty Owners And Operators together with Faskin Oil & Ranch.

There are also links to the websites for WCS and ISP.

Our painting this evening is by American abstract expressionist, John Stephan, 1906 to 1995.

Stephan devoted himself exclusively to disk paintings, for the last three decades of his artistic career.

These nearly square compositions, always just inches taller than they are wide, each comprise a central monochrome circle delineated from its ground by multiple bands of contrasting color.

Depending on how the colors come alive in relation to one another, the central orb floats or recedes, emanating perimeters of this geometric distribution, an infinite potential for visual poetry, in the juxtaposition of his subtly mixed colors.

The monumental achievement of Stephan's disc paintings stands on solid foundation of a lifetime of artistic accomplishment.

And you can see this painting and many other fine works of art, at Baker Schorr Fine Art Gallery here in Midland.

Finally, thank you for joining us for One Question.

We will be back each Saturday at 4:30, where we will answer the questions you want to know, with the people who know.

Other ways to watch One Question include Basin PBS, Facebook, Passport and YouTube.

If you have a question, send it to us at OneQuestion@basinpbs.org.

I'm Becky Ferguson.

Goodnight.

(upbeat music)