|
Earthquakes Near the WCS Dump |
PDF |
| Print | |
E-mail |
|
Monday, 24 August 2009 09:35 |
Earthquakes
Chapter 12 of, State of Texas Hazards Analysis, by the Governor's Division of Emergency Management, Department of Public Safety, Austin, Texas, 1998.
Introduction: Earthquakes in Texas
An earthquake is a motion or trembling that occurs when there is a sudden breaking or shifting of rock material beneath the earth's surface. This breaking or shifting produces elastic waves which travel at the speed of sound in rock. These waves may be felt or produce damage far away from the epicenter-the point on the earth's surface above where the breaking or shifting actually occurred.
For Texans, three essential facts about earthquakes are important to remember. First, earthquakes do occur in Texas (see Figure 12A). Within the twentieth century there have been more than 100 earthquakes large enough to be felt; their epicenters occur in 40 of Texas's 257 counties. Four of these earthquakes have had magnitudes between 5 and 6, making them large enough to be felt over a wide area and produce significant damage near their epicenters.
Second, in four regions within Texas there have been historical earthquakes which indicate potential earthquake hazard (Figure 12B). Two regions, near El Paso and in the Panhandle, should expect earthquakes with magnitudes of about 5.5-6.0 to occur every 50-100 years, and even larger earthquakes are possible. In northeastern Texas the greatest hazard is from very large earthquakes (magnitude 7 or above) which might occur outside of Texas, particularly in Oklahoma or Missouri- Tennessee. In south-central Texas the hazard is generally low, but residents should be aware that small earthquakes can occur there, including some which are triggered by oil or gas production. Elsewhere in Texas, earthquakes are exceedingly rare. However, the hazard level is not zero anywhere in Texas; small earthquakes are possible almost anywhere, and all regions face possible ill effects from very large, distant earthquakes.
Third, while Texas does face some earthquake hazard, this hazard is very small in comparison to that in many other states, including California, Missouri, Montana, South Carolina, and Washington (Figure 12C). In most parts of Texas earthquake hazard is also small compared to the hazard attributable from other natural phenomena, such as hurricanes, tornadoes, and floods. Thus there is no need for Texas to enact sweeping changes in construction practices, or take other drastic measures to mitigate earthquake hazard.
However, Texans need to begin learning about earthquakes. Over the past 70 years Texas has changed from a sparsely populated state with an economy dominated by agriculture to an economically diverse state with various large, technical manufacturing industries centered in a few densely populated urban regions. For reasons of safety, economy, and (in some cases) law, Texans need to consider earthquake hazard when designing or siting various structures which are essential for providing medical or emergency management services, which house sensitive manufacturing processes, or which store hazardous wastes.
Figure 12A Locations of earthquakes and earthquake sequences that have occurred in Texas, or that were felt by Texas residents. Numbers are the year of occurrence.
Figure 12B Map indicating probable causes of eartthquakes occurring in Texas. Solid lines show the four regions of Texas where historical earthquake activity indicates there is earthquake hazard. Light lines are county boundaries.
Figure 12CEarthquake hazard map for the continental United States as prepared by the U. S. Geological Survey. In the central and eastern U. S., the regions expecting the highest accelerations all correspond to the sites of known historical earthquakes. These include: Montana, 1959; West Texas, 1931; Oklahoma, 1952; Missouri-Tennessee, 1811-1812; and South Carolina, 1886. In many places such as Texas, the absence of detailed historical information means that earthquake hazard may be higher than indicated in this figure.
Earthquake Magnitude, Intensity, and Damage
The nature and geographical extent of earthquake hazard depends strongly on the quake's size or magnitude. Because earthquakes are rare, people are often confused about how risk depends on magnitude. Imagine that you were about to return from a vacation, and someone told you that animals had infested your property. Naturally, you would ask whether these animal were mice, armadillos, or cattle, because each might cause a different kind and amount of damage. Similarly, if your neighborhood has an earthquake, the kind and amount of damage depends on the earthquake's size. A quake with magnitude 3 may do no more than startle people and rattle dishes within a one-square-mile region. However, a magnitude 7 would be felt by people over the entire state of Texas, and could do significant damage to buildings, bridges, and dams over a considerable region.
Scientists determine an earthquake's magnitude by measuring the amplitude of ground motion as recorded on a seismograph, and then correcting the measurement to account for the effects of distance from the epicenter. The magnitude scale is a 'power of ten' scale; thus if a magnitude 3.8 caused ground motion of 1/10 inch at a particular location, a 4.8 at the same epicenter would cause ground motion of 1 inch, and a 5.8 would cause ground motion of 10 inches. This means that magnitude 3 and magnitude 7 earthquakes are enormously different with respect to their ground motion and the size of and slip on the faults that produce them.
Scientists use the Modified Mercalli intensity (MMI) to describe how strong the motion is at a particular location. The MMI is a number between one and twelve, expressed as a Roman numeral such as MMI IV or MMI IX so that the number won't be confused with magnitude (see Figures 12D and 12E). While each earthquake has only one magnitude, it has many different intensities, since earthquake damage becomes less severe as one moves away from the epicenter. Usually, most of the damage done by an earthquake occurs in the regions nearest the epicenter which have the highest intensities. While intensity depends strongly on factors such as soil properties, in most cases earthquakes with larger magnitudes have higher maximum intensities (see Figure 12F).
Because damaging earthquakes are rare in Texas, it is tempting to ignore them. A more responsible approach is to be selective about mitigation efforts, focusing attention on structures or areas where potential hazard is greatest. The argument for earthquake mitigation is analogous to the argument for having seatbelts and airbags in automobiles-although any one driver is unlikely to have an accident in any given day or year, over a person's lifetime there is a significant chance of having a serious accident. Even in West Texas and the Panhandle, at any particular place damaging earthquakes probably occur only once per century, or less. However, with a little prior planning it is possible to ensure that their damage is minimal.
Earthquake felt intensity - the Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale
MMI What people feel, or what damage occurs.
- Not felt except by a very few people under special conditions. Detected mostly by instruments.
- Felt by a few people, especially those on the upper floors of buildings. Suspended objects may swing.
- Felt noticeably indoors. Standing automobiles may rock slightly.
- Felt by many people indoors, by a few outdoors. At night, some people are awakened. Dishes, windows, and doors rattle.
- Felt by nearly everyone. Many people are awakened. Some dishes and windows are broken. Unstable objects are overturned.
- Felt by everyone. Many people become frightened and run outdoors. Some heavy furniture is moved. Some plaster falls.
- Most people are alarmed and run outside. Damage is negligible in buildings of good construction, considerable in buildings of poor construction.
- Damage is slight in specially designed structures, considerable in ordinary buildings, great in poorly built structures. Heavy furniture is overturned.
- Damage is considerable in specially designed buildings. Buildings shift from their foundations and partly collapse. Underground pipes are broken.
- Some well-built wooden structures are destroyed. Most masonry structures are destroyed. The ground is badly cracked. Considerable landslides occur on steep slopes.
- Few, if any, masonry structures remain standing. Rails are bent. Broad fissures appear in the ground.
- Virtually total destruction. Waves are seen on the ground surface. Objects are thrown into the air.
|
|
Last Updated on Monday, 24 August 2009 09:54 |
|
|
The Memo WCS Does Not Want You To See |
PDF |
| Print | |
E-mail |
|
Monday, 24 August 2009 09:12 |
|
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
To: Susan Jablonski, P.E. Director, Radioactive Materials Division
Date: August 14, 2007 .
Through: Devane Clarke, Manager, RML Team
From: Peter Lodde, P.E., RML Team
Bruce Calder, P.G., RML TeamL.C
Abel Porras, P.E., RML Team
Roger Dockery, P.G., Waste Permits Division
Subject: Groundwater intrusion into proposed LLRW facility
Analysis ofthe data submitted by Waste Control Specialists LLC, in its license application for near-surface disposal of radioactive waste, has resulted in the following conclusions:
- Groundwater is likely to intrude into the proposed disposal units and contact the waste from either or both of two water tables near the proposed facility. The Applicant has failed to demonstrate compliance with 30 TAC §336.728(f) which states "The disposal site shall provide sufficient depth to the water table so that groundwater, perennial or otherwise, shall not intrude into the waste." .
- The Applicant has failed to successfully use numerical modeling to predict the future location of one water table that is expected to intrude into radioactive waste. This constitutes a failure to characterize the proposed site as required by 30 TAC §336.728(a) which states the proposed disposal site "...be capable ofbeing characterized, modeled, analyzed, and monitored." Moreover, the Applicant's failure to model the future location of the water table violates 30 TAC §336.709(1) which requires analysis of future site conditions.
Based on 'information provided, the Applicant has not demonstrated the site is suitable for nearsurface disposal of radioactive waste. Naturalsite conditions provide the essential assurance that a proposed facility will perform satisfactorily for the thousands of years required for radioactive waste to decay to safe levels. Natural site conditions cannot be improved through special license provisions. Therefore, teclmical staff recommends denial of license issuance. A brief discussion of the technical arguments supporting this recommendation is provided below.
Current Location of Two Nearby Water Tables
According to data submitted by the applicant, there appear to be two water tables.in the immediate vicinity ofthe proposed facility. The first is a water table present within the Ogallala, Antlers and Gatuna (GAG) materials which lie above the proposed FWF and CWF disposal units. While the data demonstrates that the GAG water table lies above the proposed facility, the precise lateral extent ofthe water table remains uncertain.
The second water table is in the Triassic redbed materials in which the proposed disposal units will be founded. The two proposed waste disposal units are to be constructed to depths of 120 feet and 85 feet within these redbed materials. ill Revision 12a of the application, submitted on March 16, 2007, the Applicant states the. second water table is no closer than 14 feet from the bottom ofthe proposed FWF disposal unit. However, staff analysis of the data shows that the water table may be closer than 14 feet. The current proximity of the second water table makes groundwater intrusion into the disposal units highly likely because of future annual rainfall increases and evapotranspiration decreases due to changing climatic conditions.
Predicted Future Locations of Water Tables
The applicant submitted two predictive numerical models of the future position of each of the two water tables. The GAG predictive model was successfully calibrated to approximate current OAG conditions. However, the calibrated GAG model predicts that groundwater will intrude into the proposed disposal facility within the period of analysis. Thus, the prohibition against groundwater intrusion provided in 30 TAC §336.728(f) is violated.
In an effort to avoid this outcome, the applicant also simulated the effects of "playa intervention" in which playas in the vicinity of the proposed units would be filled with excavated clay in an attempt to limit recharge ofthe GAG water table. However, the Applicant lias submitted no data to demonstrate that such modified playas would effectively prevent recharge over the long term, or that on-going active maintenance after site closure will not be necessary. 30 TAC §336.727 requires "the disposal facility shall be sited, designed, used, operated, and closed to achieve long-term stability of the disposal site and to eliminate to the extent practicable the need for ongoing -active maintenance ofthe disposal site following closure so that only surveillance, monitoring, or minor custodial care are required."
Conclusion
Analysis of available data shows that groundwater in the natural system already is unacceptably at or near the boundaries of the proposed disposal units. Predicted increases in rainfall are expected to drive the water tables into the proposed units. These conditions fail to meet the requirements of 30 TAC §336.728(f).
In addition, the Applicant did not successfully calibrate. the numerical model of the water table in the red beds. Consequently, simulation of the future location ofthat water table was not possible. This failure to characterize the proposed site constitutes a violation of 30 TAC §336.728(a) and 30 TAC §336.7
Natural site characteristics ofproposed low-level waste disposal sites provide the key assurance that radionuclides will safely be isolated as they decay over intervals lasting thousands of years. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission states in 10 CFR §61.7(b)(2), "A cornerstone of the system is stability -- stability of the waste and the disposal site so that once emplaced and 'covered, the access of water to the waste can be minimized." Intrusion of groundwater into the proposed, disposal units will increase the mobility of radionuclides and the likelihood of public exposure to radioactivity during the period of analysis. The likelihood of such an event causes technical staff to conclude that issuance of a license for the proposed facility cannot be recommended.
|
|
Last Updated on Monday, 24 August 2009 23:59 |
|
‘Even the Mafia was more circumspect’: Glenn Shankle goes from regulator to lobbyist |
PDF |
| Print | |
E-mail |
|
Wednesday, 10 June 2009 23:18 |
‘Even the Mafia was more circumspect’: Glenn Shankle goes from regulator to lobbyist
In January, six months after stepping down as the executive director of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Glenn Shankle signed on as a lobbyist for Waste Control Specialists, the company recently licensed by TCEQ to build a massive radioactive waste dump in West Texas. His lobby contract is worth between $100,000 and $150,000, according to the Texas Ethics Commission.
Written by Forrest Wilder, The Texas Observer
Glenn Shankle
The revolving door between government and the private sector is a time-worn tradition in Texas. But here’s a case that on its bare facts is particularly egregious.
In January, six months after stepping down as the executive director of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Glenn Shankle signed on as a lobbyist for Waste Control Specialists, the company recently licensed by TCEQ to build a massive radioactive waste dump in West Texas. His lobby contract is worth between $100,000 and $150,000, according to the Texas Ethics Commission.
When Shankle left TCEQ in June 2008, the agency was readying, per Shankle’s orders, two licenses authorizing Waste Control to bury millions of cubic feet of radioactive waste. The four-year license review process had been one of the most time-consuming and contentious in agency history.
Shankle’s own technical staff, geologists and engineers had concluded definitively that the dump could not legally be permitted. An Aug. 14, 2007, memo drafted by two geologists and two engineers bluntly stated that the landfill’s proximity to two aquifers made it “highly likely” that radioactive waste would leak into the groundwater. The site, they wrote, “cannot be improved through special license conditions.” They recommended denying the license. With little explanation, Shankle overruled them. His only sop to the staff were license conditions requiring additional studies before construction.
Amazingly, Shankle said in a brief telephone interview yesterday—one of the few times he has ever spoken to the press—that he had never heard of any of this.
“I was not aware of that,” Shankle said of his own technical staff’s recommendations. If true, that’s stunning. According to the Houston Chronicle:
When WCS President Rodney Baltzer learned of the [August 14] memo, he immediately sought out meetings with the agency’s executive director, Glenn Shankle, who decided in December [2007] to begin drafting the license.
In fact, records from TCEQ, previously discussed in the Observer, show that during the time period after the staff’s recommendation, Shankle was frequently meeting with Waste Control officials, attorneys and lobbyists. Waste Control is owned by Harold Simmons, the Dallas billionaire and major Republican donor who helped bankroll Swift Boat ads attacking John Kerry in 2004 and television ads in 2008 linking Barack Obama to Bill Ayers.
Baltzer left nine messages for Shankle and four for [Deputy Executive Director Dan] Eden between July 2007 and January 2008, according to phone logs that reflect only missed calls. Eden met with Waste Control officials at least five times during that period. Former Republican Congressman Kent Hance, a Waste Control investor and chancellor of the Texas Tech University System, paid a visit to Shankle’s office in early November.
Cliff Johnson, a principal in Textilis Strategies, an Austin-based firm that lobbies for Waste Control, visited with Shankle in September. Shankle also met with Giblin, Baltzer, and Mike Woodward, a Waste Control lobbyist and attorney with Hance’s law firm, during that period.
The outcome of this full-court press was the Shankle-ordered drafting of the coveted disposal licenses, permits that are worth untold millions to the company. In fact, without these licenses Waste Control is a losing venture. Last year, Waste Control lost $21.5 million, according to SEC filings for Valhi, Waste Control’s parent company. In other words, Shankle had done a very big favor for Waste Control.
The move so upset his staff that three of them quit in protest. One of them, Glenn Lewis, who coordinated one of the license review teams, reacted with disgust and anger when told yesterday that Shankle was lobbying for Waste Control.
“Even the Mafia was more circumspect than this,” Lewis said. “To find out now that Mr. Shankle—who was in constant communication with WCS throughout this ordeal—now is on retainer for [WCS] is shocking in that it is so brazen and such an insult to everybody who worked on that application. It just shows that any objective appraisal by the TCEQ was from its inception a fantasy and that big money and a lot of political power won once again. … They should have just issued the license the day after it was received and saved everybody a lot of trouble.”
When it was suggested to Shankle that there was at least the appearance of a quid pro quo, he responded: “The freedom of the press can go so far. You’re making some very serious allegations.” Then he hung up.
|
|
Last Updated on Friday, 12 June 2009 08:53 |
|
NewsChannel 11 Investigates: Toxic Waste Coming to West Texas, Part 2 |
PDF |
| Print | |
E-mail |
|
Wednesday, 10 June 2009 15:56 |
NewsChannel 11 Investigates: Toxic Waste Coming to West Texas, Part 2
 |
 |
LUBBOCK, TX (KCBD) - NewsChannel 11 told you Monday about a historical cleanup involving General Electric shipping millions of pounds of toxic waste from the Hudson River and burying it in West Texas. Tuesday we hear from a former employee of Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. He claims he quit his job after permits were granted to the landfill against his recommendation.
Click Here to Watch the Video
Glen Lewis says he threw in the towel after TCEQ granted these permits allowing hazardous waste to be buried at the landfill site in Andrews, Texas. He says his reasoning is that those toxic substances will inevitably contaminate the aquifer sitting underneath that dump, which is one way Lubbock gets its water.
Lewis has been with TCEQ for 16 years. He spent nearly four of those years investigating the Waste Control Specialists site in Andrews, Texas for approval of certain toxic wastes. Lewis says, "I resigned my position there, mainly because of decisions made regarding the application submitted by WCS for disposal of low level radioactive waste at a site in Andrews County."
Lewis wasn't the only TCEQ employee who strongly felt the WCS site was the wrong place for these contaminates. "There were two other people who quit specifically because of this," Lewis says.
The permit was just granted to WCS on January 28th, 2009. "All of our time has been wasted. We've all been played for suckers, we've all been pointless impediments to a process that resulted in issuing this license from the first day," Lewis explains.
During Lewis' review with TCEQ, he found that the landfill site is threatened by dump water draining into two water tables. One of those, the Ogallala aquifer which is water Lubbock drinks. "It may be as close as 14 feet from the bottom of the proposed trench. We found that those were unacceptable margins and were not the hundreds of feet of impermeable red bed clay that the applicant originally claimed," Lewis says.
That is what WCS still claims. "At least 500 feet of red bed clay on the bottom of the landfill between the nearest potential aquifer," Linda Beach, the Vice President with WSC says.
So why would TCEQ and the Environmental Protection Agency grant these permits to begin with? Lewis chalks it up to inexperience. Neither organization has ever had to get rid of 1.3 million pounds of toxic waste and transport it to one location. "Nobody has really dealt with this. We can't look into a crystal ball and say that this site is absolutely going to perform satisfactory for 50,000 years," Lewis explains.
Rod Baltzer, president of WCS, says Lewis is wrong - the landfill is not over the Ogallala. "I don't think they've got the latest information, and they don't understand what the facts are," says Baltzer.
Jim Conkwright with the High Plains Underground Water District says he didn't know at first if the aquifer extends under the landfill, but did some checking and says, "It depends on your definition of the aquifer," he continues to say, "Some say it is and some say it isn't."
WCS says according to maps by the Texas Water Development board in 2006, its disposal site does not sit above the Ogallala aquifer. WCS states that after Lewis left the agency, hundreds of additional wells were drilled to determine the subsurface properties at the site. The company has had several consultants analyzing the ground water results. Also, according to the company, as a result of meetings with TCEQ, they agreed to install long term monitoring of the water at the site. Its analysis says the water at the site is puddled and not connected to the aquifer.
Wednesday night, we'll have more from the president of WCS, and why he says the Ogallala aquifer is not under his site.
|
|
NewsChannel 11 Investigates: Toxic Waste Coming to West Texas, Part 1 |
PDF |
| Print | |
E-mail |
|
Wednesday, 10 June 2009 15:32 |
NewsChannel 11 Investigates: Toxic Waste Coming to West Texas, Part 1
LUBBOCK, TX (KCBD) - It is the biggest clean-up effort in the nation, and contaminants from New York's Hudson River will soon make their way to West Texas to be buried for good. The toxic substance could come through Lubbock by railroad, but the bigger concern is your water supply. NewsChannel 11's Nicole Pesecky is investigating what has become a state-wide controversy.
Click Here to Watch Video
More than a million pounds of PCB's, or poly chlorinated biphenyls, will be dumped in a landfill in Andrews, Texas. The carcinogen is linked to thyroid disease, learning, memory and immune system disorders. For the last 30 years, high levels of PCB's were found in fish from the Hudson causing New York to ban their consumption.
 It's critical to keep PCB's out of water sources all together, but during our investigation we found out, the landfill in Andrews is sitting on top of the Ogallala aquifer, which is where many West Texas cities get their water including Lubbock.
"It's really a foolish idea to want to ship all these massive amounts of waste 2,000 miles to West Texas," said Dr. Neil Carmen, the clean air director for the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club. Carmen is not the only one who believes these contaminates are going to the wrong place - it is a highly disputed topic.
General Electric is responsible for cleaning up 1.3 million pounds of PCB's from the Hudson after they were dumped back in the 1950's, and GE is forking over $750 million to do it. In the long run, Carmen says Lubbock will be paying the price. "The Ogallala aquifer and other water formations are just a matter of feet away," says Carmen.
Linda Beach, Vice President and G. M. of Waste Control Specialists (WCS) in Andrews, disagrees. She claims there is at least 500 feet between the dump and the aquifer, and that's if there's even a water source there at all. "The aquifer below it is not really the OAG aquifer that everyone is familiar with - it's some water that is too salty to use for irrigation and is not drinkable," Linda explains.
 Andrews City Manager Glen Hackler is convinced the aquifer is not under this landfill. "The community of Andrews did independent studies verified that the Ogallala aquifer does not extend into remote western regions of the county," Hackler says. But David Barry, spokesperson for the Environmental Protection Agency for Region 6 says, "Yes, the facility does sit above the Ogallala aquifer. It sits on the southern end of the aquifer."
We checked it out for ourselves, and it does cover part of the Andrews dump. So what are the chances of this toxic substance getting into Lubbock and other West Texas water sources? "In my opinion there's no chance," Beach states.
Waste specialists say the red bed clay is 100 times more resistant than concrete, so the odds of water draining into the aquifer are very slim. Carmen says clay is not leak proof, and it will inevitably become a problem. "It's just a bad idea to leave for future generations to deal with," Carmen says.
Even the citizens of Andrews are skeptical about what the future holds. "It will probably be after my lifetime, but I think it will eventually affect the water if they're not careful," explains one concerned Andrews resident. "If it's gonna bring jobs, great. If they're gonna hurt our land then they need to find another way to do it," says another.
So why is Andrews so enthusiastic about getting dumped on? "They put a lot into our school system. They put a lot into the community. WCS is good for  Andrews," says this Andrews resident.
"I think over time there's going to be tens of millions of dollars of economic impact to benefit our community," says Hackler. He's confident this project won't taint their city or any nearby, "We don't in any way feel like this is a danger to our water supply."
One man who spent four years investigating the WCS site says the danger is definitely there. "All of our time has been wasted. We've all been played for suckers. We've all been pointless impediments to a process that resulted in issuing this license from the first day," he says.
Coming up Tuesday night in Part 2 of our investigation, we will hear from a former employee for the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. He says, after 16 years, he quit his job after permits were granted to Waste Control Specialists against his recommendation.
|
|
Last Updated on Wednesday, 10 June 2009 15:54 |
|
|
