Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘ogallala aquifer’

Texas Under Threat of High-Level Radioactive Waste Storage

Posted in Nuclear, Radiation, Radioactive Waste, TCEQ, tagged , , , , , , on April 21, 2014 |

Location of the Waste Control Specialists in Andrews Tx for Radioactive Waste Blog post

At Waste Control Specialists radioactive waste disposal pit in Andrews, Tex., space inside goes for $10,000 a cubic foot in some cases. As aging nuclear reactors retire, their most radioactive steel, concrete and other components must be shipped somewhere for burial. Photo by Michael Stravato, The New York Times

Texas is under radioactive waste assault. There is already an existing “low-level” radioactive waste dump owned by Waste Control Specialists (WCS) in Andrews County. Weapons waste from Fernald, Ohio is already buried in one of the three pits there. The facility is now taking nuclear reactor waste from around the country and is accepting Department of Energy waste, including nuclear weapons waste. And there is an adjacent hazardous waste pit, which can accept some 2000 chemicals, many of the toxic or corrosive. WCS expects to make some $15 billion off the site, although Texans bear the risks of contamination and financial liability.

All of this is at a site for which Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) staff originally recommended denial of the license due to concerns about water contamination. There are 2 water bodies are present at the site, the the most significant of which is the southern tip of the massive Ogallala Aquifer.  Although some maps have been drawn to show that the aquifer doesn’t extend as far as the WCS disposal site, water has been present in up to 40% of the monitoring wells on the site, indicating that a hydrological connection could exists.  The site is supposed to be dry for safety reasons, but that hasn’t stopped the TCEQ from granting permits or WCS from burying radioactive waste there.

Now two new threats have emerged, including storage of very hot transuranic waste – which includes plutonium, neptunium, and americium from the failed national repository known as the Waste Isolation Pilot Project (WIPP) site.

Carlsbad Nuclear Waste Isolation Pilot Plant

Carlsbad, NM Nuclear Waste Isolation Pilot Plant

Texas is getting the transuranic waste unexpectedly. The Waste Isolation Pilot Project (WIPP) site in Carlsbad, New Mexico, is a disposal site for transuranic waste that is buried half a mile underground. The site had a fire on February 5th and a major radiation leak 9 days later. At least 21 workers were exposed to radiation. The New Mexico facility has been closed since the accident and the WCS radioactive waste dump in Andrews County, Texas is now taking this same highly radioactive waste and storing it above ground in steel sided buildings, raising concerns about what would happen if there were tornadoes, floods or wildfires.

In addition, now Governor Perry is actively campaigning to bring spent nuclear fuel to Texas for storage. This the hottest, most dangerous of radioactive waste, the kind that was to be sent to the failed Yucca Mountain site in Nevada.

It is so dangerous that  shielding is required to protect humans from a lethal dose as a result of exposure to spent nuclear fuel. Even 10 years after this waste is removed from a spent fuel pool, the radiation field at one meter away is 20,000 rem/hour. It only takes a quarter of that amount to incapacitate a person immediately and cause the person’s death within one week.

The spent fuel is currently cooled and then kept in dry casks at the sites where it was generated. Storing the waste at the power plant sites raises the risks for people living in those areas, but transporting the waste to a central location increases risks for those living along transportation routes and those near the disposal site. There is simply no safe way to deal with the amount of radioactive waste we are producing in the long term.

The Texas House Environmental Regulation Committee will soon address an interim charge on how to bring this high-level waste to Texas and how much economic benefit there could be. Discussion of the risks isn’t on the agenda. It seems that the committee may be blinded by potential profit for their campaign donors.

Stay tuned and learn more at www.NukeFreeTexas.org (more…)

Read Full Post »

Stop Keystone XL Pipeline in Nebraska – protect the Ogallala Aquifer

Posted in Tarsands, Water, tagged , , on November 26, 2012 |

Submit a comment to the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) on how risky the Keystone XL pipeline route is for the Nebraska Sandhills and the Ogallala Aquifer. Help us get over 1,000 comments submitted.  Click here to send a comment to the Nebraska DEQ.  If you are not from Nebraska, change the comment and let them know how this affects you.

The Ogallala Aquifer is part of the High Plains Aquifer System.  It is a vast, yet shallow, underground water table aquifer located beneath the Great Plains in the United States. One of the world’s largest aquifers, it covers an area of approximately 174,000 square miles in portions of eight states.  These include South Dakota, Nebraska, Wyoming, Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Texas.

 

Read Full Post »

Special Nebraska Legislative Session May Re-Route Tar Sands Pipeline

Posted in Tarsands, tagged , , , , on October 25, 2011 |

Click here to read a news release from the office of Governor Dave Heineman of Nebraska.

The Governor has announced a special legislative session to attempt a statutory solution to siting problems associated with the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline.

The Governor and many prominent elected leaders in Nebraska have expressed concerns about the impact a spill could have on the Ogallala Aquifer which supplies approximately 80% of the state’s water.

The Ogallala Aquifer also supplies about 40% of the water consumed in Texas.  Once in Texas, the proposed pipeline route would also cross the Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer which supplies water to 60 counties in East Texas and as many as 12 million people.

Read Full Post »

Congress should vote against reducing a review of proposed pipeline that will run through Texas

Posted in Global Warming, tagged , , , on July 26, 2011 |

The Terry-Greene Tar Sands Resolution Would Allow Hasty Decision to Be Made Regarding an Oil Pipeline Through Texas

 The Terry-Greene Tar Sands Resolution (H.R .1938), which is scheduled for a vote Tuesday, would expedite the approval for construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, requiring a decision by Nov. 1 of this year, causing important objections to the pipeline to be overlooked.

Public Citizen, ReEnergize Texas, and the Sustainable Energy and Economic Development (SEED) Coalition told Congressional members in a letter that the construction of this pipeline would increase gas prices and release pollutants into the air, with no benefit for Americans. and that they should vote against a bill that would reduce the review of a proposed oil pipeline running through the Ogallala Aquifer in Texas.

The proposed TransCanada Keystone XL pipeline would run from Canada through the Ogallala Aquifer in Texas to the Gulf of Mexico, where refineries would make oil available for export. The pipeline would transport the dirtiest oil in the world through America’s largest freshwater aquifer, risking a major oil spill and causing dangerous pollutants to be released into the air during the refining process, the groups said. This tar sands oil contains three to four times as much carbon, five times as much lead, six times as much nitrogen and 11 times as much sulfur as is found in conventional crude oil.

A spill from the proposed pipeline would be devastating because the Ogallala Aquifer supplies water to approximately a quarter of the country’s irrigated land. A recent study by University of Nebraska professor John S. Stansbury shows that TransCanada has vastly underestimated dangers posed by the pipeline. The study reveals that the Keystone XL pipeline could have up to 91 spills over 50 years, compared to TransCanada’s claims that there would be only 11.

In addition, the pipeline would drive up fuel costs in the United States. According to TransCanada’s own documents and oil industry economist Philip Verleger, the pipeline would bypass Midwestern refineries, which help keep fuel costs low for American farmers by boosting competition. TransCanada predicts this would drive up fuel costs in the U.S. by up to $4 billion annually, and Verleger anticipates gas prices rising 10 to 20 cents a gallon. So TransCanada’s proposed pipeline would require America to bear the burden of transport and raise gas prices only to send the profits to Canada and the oil to global markets.

“While this might appear to some to be an economic trade-off worth considering, a major issue is that the oil is being transported to the Gulf of Mexico to make it available for export. In other words, Texans would bear the burden of the pollution, but the oil would either supply our global competitors or be priced equivalent to the export market set primarily by the OPEC nations,” the letter said.

Click here to see the letter and click here to see the fact sheet.

Read Full Post »

Stop TransCanada From Bringing Dirty Oil to Your Backyard

Posted in Global Warming, Tarsands, tagged , , , , , , , on January 22, 2011 |

It’s been a while since a status update has been given on the Keystone XL pipeline project here at Public Citizen so the time has come!

The Keystone pipeline project is Canadian initiated undertaking involving both TransCanada and ConocoPhillips.  The pipeline is set out to be about 1380 miles long and the pipe itself is projected to be about 36 inches in diameter.  The Keystone pipeline will enter the United States from Alberta, Canada through Montana, cross through South Dakota and Nebraska to send its 700,000 barrels/day supply into stations in Oklahoma and East Texas.  In doing so, this means the pipeline would be crossing 554 acres of wetlands and 91 streams that support either recreational or commercial fisheries.

The Keystone pipeline will also run right through the Ogallala Aquifer, meaning potential damage to one of the country’s largest sources of water if a spill should occur.  Dirty Oil Picture And we all know how easy it can be for an oil spill to occur.  (see the recent WSJ article on the BP Alaskan pipeline leak)

In fact, TransCanada is supposed to construct the actual pipes to be made out of a thinner material, but the oil will be pumped at a higher pressure than normal, which increases the risks of spills even more.  The last thing we need is another BP disaster in the gulf or pipeline leak in Alaska.  But suppose you say, “So what, what’s another oil spill?”  Well, it just so happens that this pipeline will be transporting some of the dirtiest oil in the world.

This type of oil, known as tar sands oil, produces more global warming pollution than our normal conventional oil, 20% more to be exact.  It also makes conventional oil seem pretty darn clean.  Tar sands oil is full of toxic and harmful materials not only dangerous to the environment but the health of the communities surrounding the pipelines are endangered  as well.  Producing this oil for the Keystone XL will essentially result in the emittance of 11 million more tons of carbon dioxide. (more…)

Read Full Post »

Texas “Low-level” Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact Commission votes to publish new rules opening up Texas to waste from around the country

Posted in Radioactive Waste, tagged , , , , on November 22, 2010 |

Capping and sealing low-level waste

A commission overseeing low-level radioactive waste disposal in Texas voted Saturday to publish proposed rules that would guide the importation of nuclear waste from across the country for burial near the New Mexico line.

The Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact Commission voted 5-2 to publish  revised rules that would guide the importation of nuclear waste from across the country for burial in Andrews County, Texas near the New Mexico line.  The proposed rules, once published in the Texas Registry, will allow for a 30-day comment period.

The vote took place without any public input.  In fact, when Public Citizen’s Texas office director, Tom “Smitty” Smith tried to speak he was told he was out of order and asked to sit down.  Much later, he was allowed to give comment, but the deed had already been done.

(more…)

Read Full Post »

Help Stop Nuke Waste Loophole; Show Support for HB 3423

Posted in Nuclear, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on March 31, 2009 |

Rep. Lon Burnam’s bill, HB 3423, will be heard on Wednesday, April 1st, in the House Committee on Environmental Regulation hearing at 10:30 AM or upon adjournment, in E1.014. If you are able to come, we’re trying to get as many people as possible to register their support of this bill (by filling out a witness affirmation form). That’s right, officially registering your opinion on a bill is as simple as filling out a card.  The bill closes the Compact Loophole, and requires other states who want to send radioactive waste here to get legislative approval first.

The Compact Agreement was originally between Texas, Maine and Vermont.  Maine pulled out of the Compact, and now Texas and Vermont are able to send their radioactive so-called “low-level” waste to be stored at the Andrews County dump in West Texas. A loophole in the Compact Agreement allows any state to send radioactive waste to Texas. We don’t need to be the nation’s nuclear dump!

The license for that dump was recently issued by the TCEQ, and the agency wrongly denied the opportunity for a contested case hearing (read: locals were not allowed to voice their opposition in any formal environment). Three long-term scientists at TCEQ recommended denying the permit — and actually left their jobs for ethical reasons once the permit was approved. The science is NOT solid for the Andrews County radioactive waste dump – and there are concerns that radionuclides could come in contact with underground water. It is possible that contamination could spread to the Ogallala Aquifer, which underlies eight states, including the nation’s wheat growing region.

96% of the radioactive waste slated  for the site would be from nuclear reactors — everything except the fuel rods. Radionuclides in the waste are dangerous today and remain dangerous for thousands of years. A recent Nuclear Regulatory Commission ruling reclassified depleted uranium from reprocessing, putting it into a less hazardous (Class A) category. Now up to 1.4 million tons of depleted uranium could go to the West Texas site and/or Clive, Utah sites.

If you can’t make it in person, calls to the Environmental Regulation committee in support of Burnam’s bill are needed! If you are a constituent, please let them know that.

Rep. Byron Cook (Chair) – 512-463-0646, Byron.Cook@house.state.tx.us
Rep. Warren Chisum (Vice-Chair) – 512-463-0736, Warren.Chisum@house.state.tx.us
Rep. Lon Burnam – 512-463-0740, (it’s his bill, give him a call to say thanks.)
Rep. Jim Dunnam – 512-463-0508, Jim.Dunnam@house.state.tx.us
Rep. Jessica Farrar – 512-463-0620, Jessica.Farrar@house.state.tx.us
Rep. Kelly Hancock – 512-463-0599, Kelly.Hancock@house.state.tx.us
Rep. Ken Legler – 512-463-0460, Ken.Legler@house.state.tx.us
Rep Marc Veasey – 512-463-0716, Marc.Veasey@house.state.tx.us
Rep. Randy Weber – 512-463-0707, Randy.Weber@house.state.tx.us

For further background on the Andrews County dump, check out Forrest Wilder’s article from the last Texas Observer, Waste Texas: Why Andrews County is so eager to get dumped on. Or if you’re more the auditory type, listen to the podcast.

Check out the press release after the jump.

(more…)

Read Full Post »