Tech News, Magazine & Review WordPress Theme 2017
  • Home
  • Supply Chain Updates
  • Global News
  • Contact Us
  • Home
  • Supply Chain Updates
  • Global News
  • Contact Us
No Result
View All Result
No Result
View All Result
Home Supply Chain Updates

Williams County Commission tables permit for radioactive oilfield waste facility

usscmc by usscmc
November 21, 2019
Williams County Commission tables permit for radioactive oilfield waste facility
Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

Secure Energy needs both county and state permits to begin disposing of low-level radioactive wastes at the 13 Mile Landfill, 14 miles north of Williston. Step one is an amended conditional use permit from Williams County.

Commissioners heard nearly two hours of testimony during their regular session on Tuesday, Nov. 19, in a packed meeting room.

Braaten attorney Carey Goetz, representing the Borrud family and unspecified other families living near Secure Energy’s 13 Mile Landfill, said recent news reports about a facility in Montana where elevated chlorides have been detected in the water raises questions about such facilities.

Chlorides are not radioactive waste, but they do come with oilfield waste, she said. Their presence means that the safeguards that were in place aren’t working.

WDAY logo




Because of that, Goetz said her clients feel there is not enough information to approve technologically enhanced naturally occurring radioactive material, or TENORM, facilities in general. But, if the commission is going to approve it anyway, the family has additional conditions they’d like to see.

Those conditions are based on two independent assessments of the Indian Hills Disposal Solids Management Facility in McKenzie County. McKenzie County and Tri Township each hired consultants to review the IHD proposal, which the Braaten law firm said are applicable to the 13 Mile facility.

Some of the recommendations might be “doubling up,” Goetz said, but she doesn’t see the downside.

“This is a genie that once let out of the bottle is hard to remediate,” she said. “Cleaning up is never going to put you back where you were before the contamination.”

Among the recommendations is for a liner that is analyzed by engineers and goes back to the County Commission for approval.

Dorothy Kuester, who lives near the facility, said that in her experience oilfield companies don’t always do what they say they will.

Among these experiences was a pipeline that went into the wrong location.

“It was my lawyer and my fees to get that remediated,” she said.

There was also a saltwater spill at 13 Mile corner, she added.

“We have pipeline breaks throughout the Bakken, and we also know that people make mistakes and in the cold equipment fails,” she said. “It becomes an issue of when will the next disaster occur?”

Julie Keller, meanwhile, talked about the company’s compliance issues, as well as the lifespan of the material.

“If we could put this all into a box and put a lid on it and store it away for 3,000 years and never have any problems with it, we wouldn’t be here discussing this,” she said. “The issue is not something you can put in a box and put away.”

Keller said 30 years of monitoring would be inadequate for material whose lifespan extends to 3,000 years.

“We have to have a plan for when this does close and when we do have this mess, because we are going to have to deal with it,” she said.

Commissioners, meanwhile, talked about the economic viability of TENORM facilities, as well as the responsibilities of landowners who have accepted royalty checks.

“I think it is pretty bold of us to create this waste and then dump it on our Montana neighbors,” Commissioner Barry Ramberg said. “We need to come up with a way to handle the problems we create ourselves.”

Commissioner Beau Anderson agreed with that on the one hand. But he is also a farmer, with a landfill in his own backyard, albeit a different company’s. He wants to be sure all conditions are there that should be.

He made a motion to deny the request as written, and to consider recommendations from Braaten.

That was defeated 3 to 2, with Ramberg and Anderson voting in favor and Chairman David Montgomery and Commissioners Cory Hanson and Steven Kemp voting against.

Montgomery said his chief concern relates to the economic feasibility of TENORM facilities if the amount of the material itself is limited. He was told by state officials that less than 20,000 tons of the material are being trucked out presently.

However, Secure Energy itself trucked out 22,000 tons in the past 12 months, an amount that is close to the 25,000-ton limit the facility can accept in one year.

Diana Trussell, solid waste manager for the Division of Waste Management, clarified the matter. There were some issues converting from cubic yards to tonnage. She recalculated the numbers, which actually range from 60,000 tons to 109,000 tons depending on the year.

Montgomery suggested there should be a cap on the number of such facilities.

Ramberg agreed, adding the last thing the state needs is dozens of TENORM facilities “all running at going broke.”

Kemp asked why the lifespan of the pit’s liner doesn’t match with the post-closure monitoring period of 30 years. Trussell said the state can extend the length of the post-closure monitoring period if the site is still generating leachate.

Hanson suggested overall safety will be improved if TENORM isn’t trucked long distances.

Hanson made a second motion to table the permit until the Dec. 3 Commission meeting, pending a review of the Braaten firm’s recommendations for additional requirements. That passed unanimously.

usscmc

usscmc

No Result
View All Result

Recent Posts

  • Volkswagen Announces Pricing of 25% Equity Stake Sale in Porsche
  • Can software simplify the supply chain? Ryan Petersen thinks so
  • A strategic approach to cost reduction for banks and fintechs
  • Study examines supply chain issues and opportunities
  • Instacart acquires hyper local grocery e-commerce platform

Recent Comments

  • Top 5 Supply Chain Certifications that are in high demand | Top 5 Certifications on Top 5 Globally Recognized Supply Chain Certifications
  • 3 Best Procurement Certifications that are most valuable | Procurement Newz on Top 5 Globally Recognized Supply Chain Certifications

Archives

  • September 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • September 2019

Categories

  • Global News
  • Supply Chain Updates

Meta

  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org

slot gacor slot slot gacor 2023 slot 2023 slot gacor terbaru slot gacor terpercaya slot gacor slot gacor slot slot gacor 2023 slot 2023 slot gacor terbaru slot gacor terpercaya slot gacor slot gacor slot slot gacor 2023 slot 2023 slot gacor terbaru slot gacor terpercaya slot gacor

Pages

  • Home
  • Terms of Use
  • Privacy Policy
  • Disclaimer
  • Antispam
  • Contact Us

Categories

  • Global News
  • Supply Chain Updates
slot gacor slot slot gacor 2023 slot 2023 slot gacor terbaru slot gacor terpercaya slot gacor slot gacor slot slot gacor 2023 slot 2023 slot gacor terbaru slot gacor terpercaya slot gacor slot gacor slot slot gacor 2023 slot 2023 slot gacor terbaru slot gacor terpercaya slot gacor

Tags

APICS Globally Recognized Supply Chain Certifications IIPMR Certifications International Institute for Procurement and Market Research (IIPMR) ISM Next Level Purchasing Top 5 Supply Chain Certifications top supply chain certifications

Trending

No Content Available
  • Antispam
  • Contact Us
  • Disclaimer
  • Home
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Use

© 2023 www.usscmc.com

No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Supply Chain Updates
  • Global News
  • Contact Us

© 2023 www.usscmc.com

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Cookie settingsACCEPT
Privacy & Cookies Policy

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled

Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.

Non-necessary

Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.

SAVE & ACCEPT