Showing posts with label Texas. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Texas. Show all posts

Friday, October 9, 2009

Uranium mining operations have cooled: Texas' only active mine has scaled back production despite less opposition to nuclear power

By Asher Price

AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF

Friday, October 09, 2009

ENCINO — Even as the nuclear energy industry aims to expand, its momentum appears to have slowed for the moment.

About two years ago, when the price of uranium was at $136 a pound, the scrubby, sandy pastures where Mesteña Uranium LLC operates would have been filled with trucks, drills and hard hats. But now, with uranium selling in the low-$40s, only a few crews are operating here, with enough time on their hands to elbow one another into action when the boss' SUV — known as the Black Angus — shows up. (emphasis mine...SB)

With the price of uranium down, privately held Mesteña has cut its payroll, from 225 employees, including contractors, at the beginning of the year, to about 135 today.

Uranium is the fuel for the nuclear plants, and Mesteña's Alta Mesa operation, about a dozen miles west of Encino in South Texas, is the only active mine in the state.

In an effort to cut back capital costs, production has been throttled back from about 850,000 pounds a year to 650,000 pounds, said Paul Goranson, vice president of Mesteña and overseer of day-to-day operations, and the driver of the Black Angus, a Ford Expedition.

The company had hoped to mine uranium in another part of the ranch — owned by the shareholders of Mesteña — but that expansion was cut after the price of uranium dropped.

"The global nuclear renaissance has been put on hold," Goranson said. "We ramped up (on employees), but we've had to cut them back fast."

Although more than 90 percent of the nation's uranium is imported, with about half the imports in the form of stockpiled Soviet nuclear weapons, domestic uranium production had revived several years ago as utilities said they wanted to expand nuclear power plants. The notion was backed by some environmentalists who said the energy would be much cleaner than coal, and by policymakers, for whom the fading memories of Three Mile Island are making the technology more politically palatable.

The price shot up from less than $10 a pound in 2002 to a high of $136 in summer of 2007.

The revival of nuclear power also renewed the kind of opposition to nuclear power that had lain dormant since the late 1970s, when the last new plant began construction. Some environmentalists and landowners say uranium mining threatens groundwater and uses large amounts of water.

"We want to put a stop to uranium mining until we have better protections in place," Cyrus Reed, conservation director of the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club, said last year.

But the economic crisis and changes in supply appear to have had a lot more to do with the drop in uranium prices than protests by environmental groups.

Goranson said that hedge funds that had bought the uranium with plans to hold on to the commodity found themselves needing to raise money, fast, and willing to sell "at whatever price they could get."

Meanwhile, the market upheaval made it hard for utilities to secure the loans they needed to build nuclear plants that cost hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars.

Across the globe, other sources of supply, such as one in Kazakhstan, were found to be more robust than expected years ago, said Jeff Combs, president of Ux Consulting Co., which publishes nuclear fuel prices and tracks the uranium market.

There are no miners' lamps or carts headed underground at the Mesteña operation, called the Alta Mesa facility. Known as in-situ recovery, the process involves pumping oxidized water into the ground, which loosens and dissolves the uranium. Then the uranium-bearing water is pumped to the surface and into a recovery plant, where the uranium is separated from the water. The water, now free of the uranium, is pumped back underground to capture more uranium.

The recovered uranium, meanwhile, is filtered, dried and packaged as a yellowcake powder for shipping. Each drum of yellowcake has the energy equivalent of 10,000 tons of coal, or enough to fill a 100-car train. The drums are sent by 18-wheeler to Illinois, where they are converted to a uranium gas, then to Kentucky or Ohio for enrichment as fuel in nuclear reactors.

Operations here are likely to rebound. The imported Soviet nuclear weapons program is scheduled to wind down in 2013, and 20 more reactors have been proposed nationally. (The U.S. has 104 reactors, producing about 20 percent of the nation's electricity.)

"Going forward you're going to need lots of uranium supply," Combs said.

Internationally, concerns about climate change and the huge demand for electric power in China and India, among other places, have put dozens of new nuclear plants on drawing boards.

Among the plants hoping to expand is the South Texas Project in Matagorda County. Austin, which gets more than a quarter of its electricity from the South Texas Project, declined to invest in the expansion, but San Antonio is still considering it.

The Lower Colorado River Authority, which provides power to more than a million Central Texans, has not ruled out buying into the expansion and could buy power from the nuclear plant. At its August meeting, the LCRA board invited Dale Klein, a member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the husband of LCRA board chairwoman Becky Klein, to give a briefing.

"The future of nuclear power is a glass 'half full,' " Dale Klein, echoing the position of many politicians and the nuclear industry, told the LCRA board. "Public confidence in a safe and secure future for nuclear power is well-grounded."

http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/2009/10/09/1009uranium.html

Tuesday, July 7, 2009

WCS Sues New Mexico Attorney Over Ground Water Pollution

By Sarah Snyder

July 07, 2009

ANDREWS - Waste Control Specialists is pulling a New Mexico attorney into a courtroom in Andrews claiming he lied about the company. The lawsuit targets the President of a group that says the company's disposal site in Andrews County will pollute the ground water in West Texas.

"We just can't stand to have someone outright lying to the public and have no facts, no proof," Tom Jones, VP of Community Relations at Waste Control Specialists, said. "It was just time to put a stop to it."

WCS is taking attorney Adam Greenwood into an Andrews courtroom. He's behind the group "Save the Ogallala Aquifer" and WCS says he's spreading nasty rumors. The aquifer stretches across eight states and the organization claims that WCS' operation in Andrews County will pollute the aquifer and the drinking water for millions.

"We've been trying to get some publicity out there, get the word out so that Texans can decide if this is something they really want to do or not," Adam Greenwood with "Save the Ogallala Aquifer" said. "As far as I'm concerned, this lawsuit is a part of that process. It's helping us to spread the word. We're welcoming the scrutiny. It's the people at the dump that should be concerned."

Greenwood tells NewsWest 9, WCS never made an attempt to contact him and the announcement of the lawsuit came as a bit of a surprise. He says these charges against the radioactive waste procedures are public record and backed by the TCEQ.

"They have no ground to stand on," Greenwood said. "You can't be prosecuted in this country for speaking the truth and raising questions. A lot of questions, a lot of problems that they've managed to hide away in a corner are now going to have to be dragged out and discussed in public, and I don't think they're going to like that."

WCS defends the Andrews site is in no way connected to the Ogallala and will not pollute the ground water. They believe the group "Save the Ogallala" is focused on damaging their company, not protecting the environment.

"When he started telling people in places like Lubbock that there was a possiblity we were going to contaminate their drinking water supply," Jones said. "That is ludacris, it's false, and we reached the point where we have to fight back."

WCS is seeking an unknown amount in damages and they want to know who is funding Greenwood. Greenwood says this lawsuit and the publicity will ultimately benefit their cause, not WCS. The suit was filed in the 109th District Court at the Andrews courthouse.

NewsWest 9 will continue to follow all the latest developments.

http://www.kwes.com/global/story.asp?s=10652871

Monday, June 29, 2009

Goliad County -vs- Uranium Energy Corp.

Whether Goliad should re-file its lawsuit against Uranium Energy Corp. to protect its water is causing quite a stir...and split...amongst area residents. This post is in 2 parts...a PRO argument and a CON argument. Both are posted here with a link to the original article in the Victoria Advocate after each argument. Both articles have interesting comments accompanying them, one from our friend Mark Krueger, all worth a read.


Goliad County sued Uranium Energy Corp. in March 2008 on allegations of groundwater contamination. A judge dismissed the case in federal court just weeks ago, stating the case belongs in a state court. Now, commissioners debate whether they should re-file its case there.

Pro: County must sue again to protect water

Charlie Faupel wants Goliad County to re-file its lawsuit against Uranium Energy Corp. in state court.

"Too many cities and counties sell out for industry to gain tax base and money while leaving the environment out to dry," the rancher, who lives downstream from the proposed uranium mine, said. "I don't deny we need power. I think we should use technology in place now without having to use these dangerous uranium plants."

Goliad County claims Uranium Energy Corp. contaminated the county's water supply when it didn't cap dozens of exploratory drill holes. The county wants to sue to protect its water, prevent future contamination and recoup some of its hefty legal fees.

Goliad County Commissioner Jim Krenek wants to take the fight to court again.

"Since they have quit messing around over there, the water has cleared up some," Krenek said. "If they don't disturb the aquifer with bore holes, it settles down. What do we do, just roll over and play dead? Let them do what they want? Why do we want to risk them coming in and ruining our groundwater?

If a uranium mining company wanted to operate on your land, Krenek asks, would you feel safe drinking your well water?

"Groundwater is everything to Goliad. It's our livelihood. I don't like spending county tax dollars, but I feel like we have to fight the company. If we don't, who will?"

Faupel agreed.

"My livelihood, ranch and ability to live healthy in an area where my family's lived for generations is worth it," Faupel said. "I think that right now it looks like an awful big mountain, but this mountain may be a mole hill if the uranium company destroys all that land out there."

http://www.victoriaadvocate.com/news/2009/jun/28/gs_pro_lawsuit_062906_55939/?news

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Con: Taxpayer money wasted on losing battle

Gentry Powell said Goliad County is unwise to throw hundreds of thousands of tax dollars at a losing fight.

Individual landowners and not county officials signed exploratory mining leases with Uranium Energy Corp.

"Why would the county intervene on the behalf of private landowners?" Powell said. "If I had a fight with an oil company over damaging my land or water, could I ask the county to pay thousands of dollars for my legal fees?"

Goliad County should not file suit against the company in state court because it can't win, it can't afford to lose and because a federal judge already tossed its case once.

Jerry Rodriguez, a Goliad County commissioner, said the county should object to uranium mining by following state protocol - and not by trying to win landmark environmental cases.

"The federal judge ruled there wasn't a case there. Instead of trying to fight with these people anymore, the county should work with UEC," Rodriguez said. "Ultimately, they're going to get the permit. The way we're going, we're going to lose and we won't have a say-so."

The Texas Railroad Commission has deemed the uranium company did not contaminate well water.

"What more proof do the other stubborn commissioners need?" Rodriguez asked.

In addition to the hundreds of thousands of dollars incurred in legal fees, the county now faces the potential of paying the uranium company's legal tab. Uranium Energy Corp. just filed paperwork demanding $200,000 from the county.

"We shouldn't gamble with taxpayers' money," Rodriguez said. "Now, if individuals want to sue them, that's fine and dandy. I'm not saying uranium is the best for Goliad County. We're just not going to be able to stop them."

Powell said the company already passed state inspection to receive its draft mining permit.

"I do believe no matter how much money they spend, they're going to lose," Powell said. "I think the commissioners mean well, but they've taken this thing and it's become a personal vendetta."

http://www.victoriaadvocate.com/news/2009/jun/28/gs_con_lawsuit_062909_55938/?news&goliad-county

Opinions Split on Uranium Lawsuit

Goliad has been on our radar for the past several months as there are myriad instances of severe well-water contamination caused by drilling for uranium, much like what's happening in the vicinity of Coles Hill. Our friend Mark Krueger has kept us informed re: the developments in Goliad and has sent several videos that we've posted upon receipt. The link to the Victoria Advocate (below the article) has been unstable over the past several hours so we're fortunate to have the article here.

By JULIAN CAVAZOS

Originally published June 28, 2009 at 2:54 p.m.

Open bore holes blamed

Of the more than 900 bore holes drilled in northern Goliad County, 136 of them were left open longer than 48 hours, which is a violation, said Jim Blackburn, Goliad County's environmental attorney.

Goliad ...

Of the more than 900 bore holes drilled in northern Goliad County, 136 of them were left open longer than 48 hours, which is a violation, said Jim Blackburn, Goliad County's environmental attorney.

Goliad County contends the open bore holes allowed rainwater to cause contamination to the subsurface, also known as illegal injection, Blackburn said.

Blackburn said the county would take another month or so to decide if they will re-file the case in state court.

GOLIAD - Goliad County commissioners presented their case against Uranium Energy Corp. to the public on Saturday.

County residents attended so that they could become more informed and offer input on whether the county should re-file its legal case in state court.

The county sued the uranium company in March 2008. The lawsuit contends the company failed to cap exploratory bore holes, which they county says contaminated the water supply.

A federal judge dismissed the case a few weeks ago. Now, commissioners are debating whether they should re-file the case in state court.

"We're going to have this public meeting before we come up with a solution," said Goliad County Commissioner Jim Krenek.

Some residents who attended supported re-filing the lawsuit, while others opposed the costly move and think uranium mining should continue unimpeded.

Brad Moore, a uranium company exploration and land manager, said the county should avoid spending money on the case.

"It's really amazing that the citizens of Goliad County who support the opposition are supporting the expenditure of their funds to fight their own rights," Moore said. "The federal judge dismissed the groundwater suit, and they want to continue to spend money."

Sherilyn Arnecke, a Goliad landowner, supports the mining. Her family has been in the area for eight generations.

Mining will bring more jobs and pump more money into the county, Arnecke said.

"I just heard yesterday that in the next 20 years, they're going to build 100 more nuclear power plants in the United States," Arnecke said. "This is concerning the climate bill that's before Congress right now. And where is this uranium going to come from?"

All the money the county would spend on the re-filing in state court would cause financial neglect for the rest of the county, Arnecke said.

"They're fighting for one little part of the county," she said. "And what about the rest of the county that's being totally ignored? They're putting half a million dollars into one, little-bitty area of Goliad County, but then you have all these citizens in other parts of Goliad that are going to suffer. (The county) needs to spend their money on something Goliad County needs."

County Commissioner Jerry Rodriguez said the contaminated water was not caused by the open bore holes, but is naturally occurring.

"Muddy water there was supposedly clogged by uranium mining. It just happened to happen when those guys were out doing their drilling," he said. "It's basically one of the reasons federal judge threw the lawsuit out."

The county should negotiate with the company on a cleaning agreement, because the Uranium Energy Corp. is going to mine anyway, Rodriguez said.

"These people are here to stay," Rodriguez said. "We should work with them and put sanctions in place so they can put money in a savings account. That way if they contaminate it, they're responsible to clean it."

On the other hand, other residents oppose mining and support the lawsuit.

Susan Orr's home in Ander is near the proposed mining site.

"I live out there," Orr said. "I don't want it in my backyard. There's too many environmental issues that could come up over the years."

Contaminated water would cause Orr to lose her cattle, she said.

"I don't want to see my property value go down. We have cattle. I don't want to have to end up getting rid of our livestock because of issues of water."

Water is precious and cannot be contaminated," said Julie Fritz, a Goliad county resident.

"Water is water. It's all our water," Fritz said. "It affects everybody in the county, and in other places. Victoria should care."

Krenek agreed. He is unsure what the county will do without water.

"My position has been opposed to the uranium mining since the very first day I heard about it," Krenek said. "It has everything to do with our drinking water. Without drinking water, what do you do? Would you have to import it?"


http://www.victoriaadvocate.com/news/2009/jun/28/jc_uraniummeeting_062809_56225/

Monday, April 20, 2009

What Happens When Oxygen and Carbonate Ions Meet Uranium?

Well, see for yourself!

Our friend Mark Krueger lives near Goliad, TX. Recently we've published on this blog some of Mark's remarks and questions submitted in response to various Victoria Advocate articles that have addressed serious well-water contamination in and around the Goliad site. Sound familiar? Like Coles Hill, the Goliad site currently is not being mined actively but there has been extensive exploratory drilling. However, unlike Coles Hill, for which open-pit mining is being considered, the Goliad site would utilize "in-situ" mining. Still, at this stage of the process in both places, exploratory core samples have been taken...holes have been drilled deep into the ground.

When posing question after question regarding the source(s) of their well contamination, and hearing explanations which must be "industry standard talking points" like "water can't flow uphill", "it can't be our fault" and others just as hollow, Mark decided to try to duplicate, as closely as possible (albeit on a much smaller scale), the process utilized in "in situ" mining (and other mining processes) in which a "benign lixiviant" ("a harmless, eco-friendly liquid medium", according to the mining industry) is injected into the bore holes (and the aquifers) to force the ore to separate from the desired metal so that the metal can be recovered. Mark sought advice for performing his experiment from Dr. Richard Abitz, a nationally known geo-chemist and environmental scientist whose resume` can be found here , in order to make it as realistic as possible. The result is nothing less than stunning.

Using swimming pool chemicals - industrial grade hydrogen peroxide and soda ash (similar to baking soda) - and "Goliad sand"...normal sand taken from a well several hundred yards from where many "bore holes" are located...Mark demonstrates what happens when oxygen meets uranium and its underground friends such as radon gas, lead, arsenic, molybdenum, selenium and many other elements. Although uranium and other things do exist underground naturally, they have been without oxygen for a long time so they are at rest. In the presence of oxygen, however, these things become mobile, so they can travel with water. Mark asks, "Will this stuff travel outside the mining zone? They say it won't. It has happened before. It's called an 'excursion'. " Excursion? Talk about an industry misnomer..."excursion" sounds like an afternoon spent rolling down the river on an old-fashioned paddle-wheeler riverboat.

You'll need to watch both videos to get the full impact...Part 1 sets up the experiment while Part 2 is the "show"...or should I say "show-stopper"?

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YW4ZTgIApGY

Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0G3j-mvSW00

Thanks, Mark, for sharing your information with us and for all of your hard work in Texas!

Saturday, April 4, 2009

More Commentary on Exploratory Uranium Drilling and Water Contamination

Earlier this week, we published an article entitled "Uranium Drilling Doesn't Taint [Area] Water, Report Says; Goliad Residents Dispute Results". The article was from the Victoria, TX Advocate News.

http://sccagainsturanium.blogspot.com/2009/04/uranium-drilling-doesnt-taint-area.html

Water contamination is becoming an issue re: the drilling at Coles Hill and the results of recent water testing VUI had done on some wells nearby. Our friend Mark Krueger lives in the Goliad area and has been in touch with PittCo residents about their water test results as well. He has posted the following comments in the Advocate News in response to the recent article:
Smoke and lies. "Exploration causes contamination? There's not really a basis in that conclusion."

How is this proof that punching hundreds of holes into an aquifer won't affect it? Would this not cause pressure changes in the various layers of sand containing the water under pressure?

Uranium does exist in water wells, a lot of wells, but this isn't the issue. The issue is whether the exploration changed the natural flow of the aquifer, allowing oxygenated "new"water from the upper sand to flow into wells surrounding the exploration site, carrying with it increased levels of iron and iron bacteria among other things.

Something very similar to the Golaid situation has occurred in Virginia lately. Several wells around a mile away from an exploration site have suffered intense lead contamination after exploration. Coincidence? Only ten holes were drilled but up to 1,500 feet deep. Lead levels went from 2.8 to 17.9 in one man's well. In another, the lead shot up to over 90ppm. 15ppm is EPA's safe limit.

"Sheva resident Allen Gross believes that the company’s exploratory test drilling has caused lead levels in his well water to rise. The test drilling has been used to “map” the underground deposits of uranium at Coles Hill, helping VUI determine the quantity and quality of the underground ore deposit."

The irony of the whole thing is that Virginia Uranium, Inc. actually tested these wells before they started to explore. The increase in lead is documented by their own test results.

I spoke with Mr. Gross on the telephone. He tells of some of his neighbors and their fear of Mr. Coles (Owner of Coles Hill and VUI). When Mr. Gross asked Mr. Coles about the lead contamination, the response was, "Do you have scientific proof that I contaminated your well?" Of course he has no proof because flow patterns of water in relation to modification of the fabric via exploration has NEVER been studied.

If a fault, fracture or channel under pressure is punctured by a drill bit, could or would the water's behavorial patterns change? THAT is the question, not whether uranium exists. This whole thing is absurd.

Also, Virginia currently has a moratorium on uranium mining. Why? Because by the end of the 1970's, the end result was clear. Irresponsible uranium mining leads to irreversible contamination of groundwater.

VUI is doing everything in its power to get the moratorium lifted in Virginia. For instance, one of the major investors' son is a State Senator. This just gets uglier and uglier.

One more thing...it's not so much the uranium as the radium, arsenic, selenium, molybdenum, lead and other toxic heavy metals and radionuclides that come with the uranium when it's liberated. Also, the fact that trace amounts of uranium do exist in water wells doesn't give the uranium miners the right to make it worse. The uranium in my water well is well below EPA standards, and it had better stay that way!

I would think that the first thing to check is whether the exploratory holes lost circulation. In other words, when the drillers were drilling the holes, did the "mud" they inject keep circulating back to the top like it's supposed to, or did it disappear? This is called "losing circulation", in which the drilling mud finds a means of escape. This could be a fault, a fracture or a bed of gravel...anything that water will flow through easily under pressure.

How many of the 803 holes drilled in Goliad County lost circulation? Is there a log somewhere that has this information? This would be the obvious place to start. If the drilling mud took off in a certain direction, why wouldn't everything else?

Here's a theory. If, for example, a driller lost circulation in the second sand (hit a gravel bed, channel, fault or fracture), then could water from the first sand travel vertically down the column dug by the driller, into the second sand? If the water from the first sand could travel through a "weak spot" in the second sand and cause increased flow, then the water in the first sand would have to be replenished from uphill (updip), and therefore cause increased flow of "new" oxygenated recharge water. This would result in increased oxygen in both the first and second sands. Oxygen is what liberates all the metals including iron, lead, uranium, thorium, radium, selenium, arsenic and whatever may be present in the fabric of the soil.

Water flows uphill, downhill and sideways in the aquifer. The water is under pressure, like a plumbing system. The four sands in the Goliad/Victoria area are sealed off from each other by a thick layer of clay. The water in the lower sands has not seen oxygen for a very long time, hundreds of thousands of years. When oxygen (via oxygenated water) enters the lower sands, oxidation occurs. This is when free oxygen attaches itself to the metals, turning them mobile (liquid). The higher the oxygen content of the water, the higher the levels of metals.

Did punching that many holes change the natural flow of the aquifer? Did it introduce oxygen to the water in the lower sands? These are only two of the questions at hand.

http://www.victoriaadvocate.com/news/2009/apr/01/gs_uranium_data_040209_44678/#c36756

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Fort Worth Lawmaker Airs Concerns About Low-Level Nuclear Waste Being Transported on Texas Roads


Look at the map. What route do you think this nuclear waste will take from VT to TX? Remember, depleted uranium, the most radioactive and dangerous form of U that only gets more radioactive with time, is currently classified as "low level" in the US.

By ANNA M. TINSLEY

AUSTIN — State Rep. Lon Burnam is worried about countless trucks carrying low-level nuclear waste driving on local roads — likely Interstates 20 and 30 — on the way to a disposal site in Andrews County.

Already, Vermont is sending its waste to the West Texas site, and Burnam, D-Fort Worth, is afraid that without additional restrictions more states might follow suit.

"Over two-thirds of the nation’s nuclear waste will come through D-FW on its way to Andrews County," he said. "The question is, are we taking it from two states or all of the states?"

Burnam has a bill, presented to the House environmental regulation committee Wednesday, to require the Texas Legislature — rather than a specially appointed commission — to sign off on which states can deposit their waste at the site owned by Dallas billionaire Harold Simmons.

"All this legislation does is say the buck stops here at the Legislature and not some bureaucratic agency," Burnam said. "I’m afraid that, ultimately, Texas is going to end up being the nation’s nuclear waste dump."

Currently, a governor-appointed Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact Commission generally makes contract decisions that could determine whether additional states truck their low-level waste to Texas.

Representatives of Waste Control Specialists, the company owned by Simmons that owns the Andrews County site, said they don’t support Burnam’s bill.

"Waste Control Specialists believes we ought to give the compact commission the opportunity to do its job," said Chuck McDonald, a spokesman with the company. "We are confident the . . . members would look out for Texas."

'Slim odds’?

Burnam’s proposal has gained support from groups such as the Sierra Club and Public Citizen. "We think Texas state lawmakers should have the power to debate and decide whether or not Texas should become the dumping ground for nuclear waste," said Cyrus Reed, conservation director of the Lone star Chapter of the Sierra Club.

But it could face an uphill battle because of Simmons’ political clout.

In 2006, Simmons was the third-largest donor to Republican Gov. Rick Perry, and he has given more than $3.5 million to Texas politicians or party organizations since 2000.

The bill "has slim odds" of getting Perry’s signature if it passes both chambers, Burnam said. "But Perry isn’t going to be governor forever."

State officials have agreed to let Waste Control Specialists accept low-level radioactive waste from Texas, Vermont and federal sources.

Among the waste accepted at the site are items from Texas’ two nuclear plants, Glen Rose near Fort Worth and the South Texas Project near Bay City in Matagorda County.

As soon as May, contaminated silt from the Hudson River could be trucked to a second facility in Andrews County. Andrews County voters go to the polls in May to decide a $75 million bond program to help with site costs.

Safeguards

Officials have long said that extreme safeguards are taken to protect people from accidents along the routes that the waste travels. But Burnam said that isn’t enough.

"They tell you these trucks will withstand certain degrees of impact," Burnam said. "If they fell off an overhead, that would be more than they could withstand.

"Do we really want to take the risk?"

And he said he fears that the state ultimately will have to pick up the bill for the site, which is why they should keep a close eye on what contaminants are taken there.

"When Harold Simmons becomes bankrupt in 12 years, the state of Texas will become financially responsible" for the site, Burnam said. "Texas is going to be stuck with the management of any nuclear waste we take, whether it’s from two states or 35."

I’m afraid that, ultimately, Texas is going to end up being the nation’s nuclear waste dump."

Rep. Lon Burnam,
D-Fort Worth

http://www.star-telegram.com/804/story/1294111.html

Monday, March 23, 2009

Mining Issues in TX

We continue to get interesting information from Mark Krueger in Texas. Yesterday I got an email that talked about abandoned tailings ponds and abandoned mines. Open pit mining, like that which would be used at Coles Hill has not been used in TX for a number of years...they're now using "in situ" or "leach" mining because the uranium there is much closer to the surface than at Coles Hill. Mark told me this sad story too:

"Open pit mining in Texas hasn’t been used in a long time. When it was used, especially right when the uranium market fell, they abandoned the pits and mounds of radioactive tailings around Karnes County and Live Oak County , as well as some others. Today, those wastelands are still there. You can’t find a blade of grass, a bird, not even a bug around those sites. The federal government is still cleaning up those sites 30 years later. Also, I’ve heard of water collecting in the pits to form what looks like a blue swimming hole. Again, no bugs, no fish, no birds. Anyway, I’ve been in contact with the Health Inspector of Bee County, who told me that his son and some friends had stumbled upon and swam in one of these “beautiful” swimming holes. One of these young people has since died from cancer."

Mark also sent this informational chart to show how many mines had been stopped, plugged, ignored, etc. over the past several years. Texas has a mess. Virginia doesn't want this kind of mess.

TEXAS ENVIRONMENTAL PROFILES

URANIUM MINING

The mineral uranium is primarily used by the nuclear power industry to produce energy, although it can also be used to make nuclear weapons. In Texas, uranium has been mined for decades. Uranium used to be strip-mined, much as coal is mined. This mining process results in tailings. These tailing materials are placed in ponds, which often have neither natural or synthetic liners. Some ponds have leaked, contaminating soils and subsurface aquifers, as well as emitting radioactive gases into the atmosphere. There are currently no above ground uranium mining sites in Texas, and all mines have or are undergoing reclamation and clean-up activities. In addition, four tailings and waste sites—where the uranium was milled and extracted from the ore—in Karnes and Live Oak counties are being closed and covered to prevent further contamination of subsurface aquifers or radioactive waste emissions.


During the operation of mill sites, the tailings ponds are used as receptacles for the by-products of the ore process. During closure, the mill site and other facilities are decontaminated and any material is placed in the tailing ponds. The tailing pond is then dewatered and the impoundment is surrounded by a clay cap and radon barrier. Three of the tailing sites—run by Chevron, Exxon, and Conoco—are being supervised by the Texas Department of Health with support from the TCEQ.

The Department of Energy supervised cleanup of a fourth tailing pond in Falls City, Karnes County, an area that produced and processed uranium for the defense industry.
The Department of Energy site has cost about $35 million, 90 percent of which has been covered by the federal government. The tailings pond sites have resulted in groundwater contamination, including one confirmed case at the Chevron facility in 1996.

In 1997 the Texas legislature transferred the jurisdiction to regulate the recovery and processing of uranium and thorium, as well as the disposal of uranium by-products, from the TCEQ to the Texas Department of Health. Since 1975, 38 sites that use injection wells, rather than a strip mining operation, have been permitted to mine uranium (In several instances these permits have been combined, meaning the total number of sites is less). The injection process does not result in tailings. However, only two of these sites—one in Kleberg County and another in Duval County owned by Uranium Resources Inc.—were mining as of November 1997, and none were mining by September of 2003.

Most in situ mining facilities have been closed down and cleaned up and are awaiting a final inspection survey from the Texas Department of Health before being decommissioned by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, while others have never been built and have had their permits canceled. In fact, there are only a handful of permitted uranium mines that could still mine uranium if market conditions allow it in the future.

These in situ or "solution" mines are considered by state agency regulators to present fewer environmental problems than strip-mines because liquids are pumped underground to dislodge uranium, which is then pumped out through wells. Temporary settling ponds that store water, sand and precipitate, and drilling liquids must be lined but do not have to be covered.

However, spills, accidents, and leaks can still occur at such facilities. Waste generated by in situ uranium facilities can be sent to authorized disposal facilities or to tailing sites. Previously, uranium mining operations in Texas were sending their waste to Envirocare of Utah or to one of several tailing impoundments in Utah and Wyoming that are still open to receive by-product waste.

LIST OF URANIUM MILLING AND MINING RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL RECOVERY

LICENSEES AND APPLICATIONS, 2003

http://www.texasep.org/html/wst/wst_6ird_mnng.html

(link to list of closed, abandoned, plugged, etc. TX mines)