Posted on 07/08/2003 9:45:34 AM PDT by CedarDave
Sunday, July 6, 2003
Tiny N.M. Town Welcomes Possible Nuke Dump
By Rene Romo Journal Southern Bureau
EUNICE — A Texas firm wants to build a low-level radioactive waste dump practically in the back yard of this oil patch town, and while environmentalists vow to fight the project, locals here are tickled about it.
''Anything that would bring any kind of industry into this part of the country, whether in Texas or in New Mexico, would be welcome, because we're so dependent on oil,'' said Eunice City Councilman Bill Robinson.
The landfill's opening, if it does come to pass, is still years away, with the entire permit application process to go through.
But Texas' state government took a crucial step down that path in late June when Gov. Rick Perry signed legislation authorizing the state's first privately operated dump for low-level radioactive waste.
Under the legislation, the landfill could ultimately accept up to 6 million cubic yards, including waste from medical research labs and nuclear power plants in Texas and Vermont, who are parties to a compact from which Maine earlier withdrew.
In addition, the law would permit the landfill operator to accept waste from federal nuclear facilities in other parts of the country.
A cubic yard of material, generally contaminated dirt, is typically the equivalent of about 1.3 tons.
The leading candidate to operate such a landfill in Texas is an outfit called Waste Control Specialists, whose president, Dallas billionaire Harold Simmons, enlisted an expensive team of lobbyists to press state lawmakers on the project.
Waste Control Specialists owns a 16,000-acre swath of land straddling the Texas-New Mexico border.
The site's nearest neighbor is tiny Eunice, which sits six miles to the west in the pumpjack-clogged oil patch of southeastern New Mexico and has a population of 2,562.
The nearest Texas neighbor is 32 miles east — Andrews, seat of Andrews County.
The site is also 50 miles from the Waste Isolation Pilot Project in Carlsbad, leading some outside critics to characterize the area as a ''sacrifice zone'' given up to projects many communities consider unpalatable.
WCS already operates a hazardous waste processing and storage facility at the Texas site, an island of industry in the flat mesquite-covered desert. There it handles materials of low-level radioactivity but not for permanent disposal. Low-level radioactive waste is stored in 100-cubic-foot containers or steel drums, while hazardous waste, including chunks of contaminated concrete, research center uniforms and gloves, are stored in a landfill.
An orientation sheet provided to visitors says: ''People outside of the facility boundary are not measurably affected by radiation or radioactivity handled by the site.''
But Tom W. Jones III, general manager of WCS' Andrews County landfill, said, ''I'm convinced it's safe. My wife and I moved to Andrews. Quite frankly, I'd be comfortable living on site.''
Just across the road from WCS' landfill site is a 350-acre municipal landfill operated by the Lea County Solid Waste Authority. WCS donated the land to Lea County in the late 1990s.
Jones said the site is uniquely qualified for the project because it sits atop an 800-foot thick layer of red clay that is virtually impermeable.
Jones said the site does not sit above the vast Ogallala aquifer, which provides water to much of Texas.
The new legislation would allow a landfill roughly 10 times the size of WCS' current facility, Jones said. But unlike the existing plastic-lined landfill, the new legislation requires a concrete-lined facility or for the debris to be stored in concrete containers.
Before any site is opened, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality must first issue regulations, accept and review applications and conduct public hearings. A permit for any site isn't expected to be issued until 2007 at the earliest, Jones said.
That would mark a new stage in Texas' 20-plus-year, $50 million effort to find a spot to deposit radioactive waste.
The previous chapter ended in 1998 with the state's decision to abandon plans to build a publicly run radioactive waste landfill in Sierra Blanca, 90 miles east of El Paso and 20 miles from the Rio Grande.
The project was vehemently opposed by Mexican officials and environmental activists concerned about a fault line running through the site.
Environmental activists, who have closely monitored the long-running effort, plan to continue the fight when WCS applies for a permit.
''We do not consider this a done deal,'' said Erin Rogers, outreach coordinator for the Sierra Club of Texas. ''There are many administrative and licensing hurdles that have to be overcome by Waste Control, and we will continue our opposition to it until the bitter end.''
Criticisms and concerns include the safety of transporting waste to the site through populated areas, turning the region into a catchall for hazardous and radioactive waste, and that Texas has assumed the liability for cleaning up a privately run site should if necessary.
But Rogers cited another concern. ''In the bigger picture, this bill facilitates the Bush administration's plan to build nuclear power plants and new nuclear weapons, and we are opposed to new nuclear power plants and new weapons, especially when Texas has the wind capacity to generate a third of the entire country's present-day electricity needs,'' Rogers said.
''Once such a facility opens up,'' said Joni Arends, executive director of Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety in Santa Fe, ''other states will try to bring their waste there as well. One of the big concerns is the camel's nose under the tent and the next generation of nuclear power plants.''
Environmentalists also gritted their teeth when WCS representatives used domestic terrorism fears to lobby for the legislation allowing a privately run radioactive waste dump.
Retired U.S. Navy Adm. Bobby Inman, former National Security Agency director, told Texas legislators in committee hearings that terrorists could make ''dirty bombs'' from stolen radioactive waste now stored at medical and academic institutions around Texas.
''It's simply not reasonable to have waste sitting around on a site for 20 or 30 years that there's no place to get rid of it,'' Jones said.
Locals see the facility as a welcome addition to a job base dominated by the oil industry and the uncertainties of oil price fluctuations. Waste Control currently employs 70 people at its hazardous waste landfill and processing center.
The Andrews Industrial Foundation is solidly behind the project. Andrews resident Peggy Pryor said her former group of about 50 people, called Stop the Andrews Nuclear Dump, has dissolved in recent years because of what she called ''political pressure here in town.''
Now, she says of Andrews' anti-dump contingency, ''I'm about the only one.''
''I've never heard anything bad about it,'' said Eunice Mayor James Brown in a recent interview. ''We've had a number of residents work out there. I've never heard anything critical at all.''
State Sen. Carroll Leavell, R-Jal, said the potential landfill had ''not caused any headlines to my knowledge in Lea County'' and no one has contacted him ''with a voice of concern or upset about it.''
''In this area, people are probably more knowledgeable about the nuclear issues and the hazards they are involved with than in many (communities), because we've gone through the many, many years of licensing and preparation for WIPP,'' Leavell said. ''It's become almost a nonissue.''
If New Mexicans do want to formally comment on a radioactive waste landfill in neighboring Andrews County, Texas, during the licensing process, Rogers warned, they could encounter an obstacle. Last session, Texas' Republican-dominated legislature passed bills containing provisions that prohibited New Mexico residents from commenting on Texas projects going through the environmental permit process. The bills died in committee.
''It (the legislation) will be back,'' Rogers warned.Copyright 2003 Albuquerque Journal
2 posted on 3/6/02 7:30 AM Pacific by grammymoon:
"What would you do Without FR?
How would You Feel without FR?
Suppose one day you tried to log on and Free Republic wasn’t there?
Where would you get your up to the minute news? How about the live threads as things are happening?
How would you know about the latest Demorat scams, anti-second amendment schemes and all the other liberal, anti-American ploys that are tried every single day?
Insight into world affairs, brilliant wit, sharp retorts, instant information gratification are a few of the things that make FR so vital.
How would you keep on top of things without FR?
How would you know who to contact to complain about the lying politicians, Media Bias, Hollyweirds latest mouth off, sponsors of these idiots, company policies that are unfair and all the other things we need to know to counteract the liberal mindset and the evil plans of liberals?
How would you be part of a Freep?
What would you do without FR????
Freedom isn’t free.
If you enjoy the site and find it a place of like minded Americans to sound off, to get together, to fight back, to have your voice heard and make a difference,PLEASE CONTRIBUTE NOW ! Donate Here By Secure Server
Jim can’t do this alone.
The liberals are sure we won’t be able to keep FR up & running. Prove them wrong. Show them we are indeed united Freepers. Whether it is $5.00, $50.00 or more, it all adds up. Please send a donation now to Free Republic.
Apples and oranges. The Yucca Mountain facility is for high-level waste. This is a low-level waste facility. Big difference. Know what it is? Study up and find out.
I did a demo for some legislators in my state who were looking at the possibility of siting a facility here. I held a G-M micro-rem meter next to a box of low-level radwaste, then held it next to a bunch of bananas. Guess which one read higher for exposure rate? Here's a hint. Its spelled b-a-n-a-n-a-s. Why? Well, bless my soul, bananas are a good source of potassium, an essential nutritional element. Some of that potassium is 40K, which is naturally radioactive. Ahhhhhhh! We're all gonna die! Ban those bananas! NOW! Do it FOR THE CHILDREN!
In any event, waste is already shipped to the nearby WIPP site, and I would rather have it here than next to the Columbia River or a Wisconsin dairy farm.
Tuesday, July 8, 2003Lawmakers' Support Shocks Groups
By Adam Rankin Journal Northern Bureau
SANTA FE — Many anti-nuclear activists were surprised to learn that all five of New Mexico's congressional delegates recently signed a letter endorsing Carlsbad as the proposed site of a new nuclear weapons factory.
"Everybody is a little shocked by (Sen. Jeff Bingaman) and majorly shocked by (Rep. Tom Udall)," said Greg Mello of the Los Alamos Study Group.
In a strong, bipartisan show of support, Democrats Bingaman and Udall, along with their Republican counterparts, Sen. Pete Domenici and Reps. Heather Wilson and Steve Pearce, signed a June 30 letter to Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham supporting Carlsbad as the proposed location of the "Modern Pit Facility," a $2 billion to $4 billion factory under consideration by the Department of Energy.
For the people of Carlsbad, many of whom are in favor of hosting the facility, the endorsements are political capital in a decision that may come down to politics and which community most favors the project.
The pit facility, which could be sited at Los Alamos, Carlsbad or three other locations, would build plutonium "triggers," or pits, to replace the nation's aging nuclear stockpile. The pits set off a larger, second-stage blast in nuclear weapons.
But Bingaman and Udall only signed the letter on the condition that it contain a qualifier.
"It was originally written as if the Modern Pit Facility was a foregone conclusion," said Udall spokesman Glen Loveland. "Congressman Udall insisted that we add an initial paragraph that says they should consider Carlsbad only if it is found this facility is really needed."
In the final version of the letter to Abraham, the second sentence now reads: "If it is determined such a facility is necessary, we believe the WIPP site in Carlsbad, New Mexico, provides the best option."
"We just wanted to stress the debate is still going on, and no final decisions have been made," Loveland said. "We know they don't want it in northern New Mexico, and at this point, that is our primary concern."
In Bingaman's case, he also wrote a separate letter to Abraham expanding on the group's statement.
"If the Department determines that such a facility is necessary, and has carefully informed the public and the Congress of all the safety, environmental and fiscal consequences of the Facility, then I believe that the WIPP facility at Carlsbad should be seriously considered as the best option for its location," Bingaman wrote.
Domenici spokesman Chris Gallegos and a policy official with Pearce said both lawmakers considered the language added by Udall and Bingaman to be implicit in the original wording because the pit facility is not a certainty. The final decision rests with Abraham.
Regardless of the qualifiers, Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce President Mark Schinnerer said having all five delegates sign the letter translates into "tremendous support."
Having the pit facility "would be a big economic boost, not just for Carlsbad" but for neighboring communities, such as Hobbs, he said.
Hosting the pit facility would mean an infusion of cash and jobs — yearly operations are estimated to cost $200 million to $300 million, and the facility would support about 1,000 jobs over a 50-year period — at a time when Carlsbad's other government mainstay, the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, is scheduled to begin closing.
But New Mexico's delegates should be thinking about more than economic or community development when it comes to endorsing such weighty projects, said Joni Arends with Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety.
"The congressional delegates should be looking at these larger issues.
The Democrats members want it out of the Santa Fe/Los Alamos area. They can't afford to torpedo the effort so they will hold their nose and push for Carlsbad. The greenies will call it a national sacrifice area, but if you have ever been there, you would understand why it is of no concern to me. For example, the potash industry has dumped salt wastes on the ground for 60 plus years and all the water (what there is of it) is much saltier than sea water. An environmentally benign plant making plutonium pits would be an improvement. And the waste disposal site for transuranic waste is right next door -- no transportation costs, no waste trucks going through your town. If it is to be built, that is a good location.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.