There are three plumes in the deep regional drinking water aquifer below Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL).  Although the plumes contain radioactive, toxic, and hazardous pollutants associated with operations at LANL, they are commonly known by the pollutant with the largest concentration.  They are the hexavalent chromium, or Chrome 6, plume; the perchlorate plume; and the high explosives, or Royal Demolition eXplosion, or RDX, plume.  Each plume is moving to the Rio Grande.

LANL is investigating the plumes by drilling extraction and injection wells in order to extract contaminated waters, treat them with either ion exchange or granulated activated charcoal, and return the water to the aquifer.  Some waters are too contaminated to be returned to the aquifer.

Under a ground water discharge permit issued by the New Mexico Environment Department on July 27, 2015 for a five year term, LANL received permission to land apply those waters to dirt roads, and to sprinkle the waters in the canyon bottoms.  The permit is called Discharge Permit 1793, or DP-1793.  http://nuclearactive.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/ATT00104.pdf

Such activities are the subject of an Environment Department public hearing scheduled to begin at 9 am on Wednesday, November 7^th, and continuing on as needed, at the Los Alamos Magistrate Court, located at 2500 Trinity Drive, in Los Alamos.  The Hearing Officer will provide opportunities for public comments and non-technical testimony.  https://www.env.nm.gov/gwqb/public-notice/#Hearings

To help you prepare for the hearing, Tewa Women United, a member of Communities for Clean Water (CCW), and CCW are hosting a free workshop this Sunday, October 28^th from 10 am to 3 pm at the Northern Rio Grande National Heritage Center, located at 848 State Road 68, in Alcalde.  http://tewawomenunited.org/oct-28-the-heart-of-the-community-speaks/

The training is called “The Heart of the Community Speaks.”  The workshop will provide an overview of policy-change basics, speaking points, and take action tools.  Lunch will be provided.  Please RSVP for the workshop at http://tewawomenunited.org/oct-28-the-heart-of-the-community-speaks/

The hearing is being held because the Communities for Clean Water coalition challenged the permit when it was first proposed in 2015.  CCNS is a founding member of CCW.  When a draft permit was released for public comments, CCW submitted three sets of detailed comments and requests for a public hearing.  http://nuclearactive.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/f-CCW-DP-1793-Comments-3-2-15.pdf, http://nuclearactive.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/f-CCW-DP-1793-Comments-4-29-15.pdf, and http://nuclearactive.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/f-CCW-DP-1793-Comments-6-15-15.pdf

Environment Department Secretary Ryan Flynn denied CCW’s request.  CCW appealed to the Water Quality Control Commission, which agreed with Flynn’s decision.  CCW then appealed to the New Mexico Court of Appeals, which agreed with CCW that a hearing must be held.  http://nuclearactive.org/new-mexico-court-of-appeals-upholds-need-for-public-hearing-about-lanl-discharge-permit/

Joni Arends, of CCNS, cordially invites you to attend the workshop and hearing.  She said, “Please show up for water.  Thank you.”

THE INF TREATY IN THE NEWS

< http://orepa.org/what-about-the-inf-treaty/ >

Why, suddenly, a shot-across-the-bow announcement from the President that the United States will withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty? I say “suddenly” because the INF Treaty has been a bone of contention since at least 2012 when President Obama certified that Russia was in violation. Yet neither Obama nor Trump, until now, felt it required action.

I can think of two possible reasons—but first, a quick bit of background.

BACKGROUND

The INF Treaty was signed by the US and Soviet Union in 1987 and became effective in 1988. It eliminated all nuclear and conventional missiles and their launchers with ranges below 3,420 miles—sea-launched missiles were not included. British and French weapons were also not included.

The treaty grew out of the Soviet deployment, in 1977, of mobile-launched ballistic missiles with a range of just under the SALT II Treaty limit of 3,400 miles. Western European leaders raised concerns these weapons made them vulnerable to attack, and a strategy of negotiations backed up by the threat of deploying new NATO missile launchers across Europe was adopted.

Many proposals and even more rounds of negotiation ensued. Finally, in 1986, Soviet president Gorbachev proposed the total elimination of all nuclear weapons by the year 2000; the US countered with a phased reduction of INF missiles in Europe and Asia, to zero by 1989. It happened. The US and Soviet Union destroyed more than 2,500 weapons between them by June 1, 1991.

Ten years later, in 2001, President George W Bush announced the United States would unilaterally withdraw from a different treaty, the Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty, because the US wanted to deploy a missile defense system—a program already underway in the US.

Six years after that, President Putin declared the INF Treaty no longer served Russia’s interest, linking a decision to pull out to US action on the missile defense system.

In 2012, President Obama accused Russia of violating the INF Treaty when it tested a new cruise missile. Russia has argued that the US bases in Poland and Romania that can launch Tomahawk missiles is a violation of the Treaty; Russia also notes the US use of drones is a violation of the Treaty.

And it must be noted that the US has embarked on a $1.7 trillion dollar plan to modernize its nuclear weapons stockpile, production infrastructure, and delivery vehicles including low-yield weapons and new missiles systems which inject new concerns into the security plans of other countries. Modernization means weapons labs can hope for almost unlimited funding and free rein to design new nuclear threats.

WHY BRING IT UP NOW?

The likeliest answer is two words: John Bolton. Seven years ago, voices in conservative circles raised concerns about China’s intermediate-range nuclear forces which are not included in the bilateral INF Treaty between the US and Russia. President Trump has included this concern in his announcement. It is possible that his declaration is an attempt to get China to the arms control table.

The ascension of Bolton, a hard-right hawk who has never seemed to mind the idea of a nuclear arms race, opened the door for the advancement of this policy idea which had failed to get traction in the Obama years.

The flaw in this attempt is simple: China has no incentive to come to the table, and to do so now, when the US and Russia hold a massive advantage over China in total nuclear weapons (an estimated 1,500 each compared to China’s 300), would erase any leverage China might have to demand further US and Russian reductions.

The other possible explanation for the timing of Trump’s announcement reflects the ongoing strategy of the Administration to create and advance distractions at times of stress in order to control the media which, for the most part, is happy to play its part. Headlines about an arcane but important nuclear weapons treaty push the Mueller investigation off the “breaking news” newsfeed of TV cable media programs and play into the pre-election Republican strategy of stoking fears of all kinds in the electorate as voters head to the polls.

It seems to me that the answer to “Why now?” is likely a combination of the two options—a policy strategy the right-wing has loved for years is being pushed at a moment when a good distraction is helpful to the wider cause.

WHAT SHOULD WE SAY?

First, arms control treaties are, as a rule, good. It is difficult in the context of the existential threat of nuclear weapons—the arsenals of the US and Russia, if unleashed, would kill hundreds of millions of people in one afternoon and render the earth almost completely uninhabitable within a decade—to make a relative judgment about intermediate threats.

On the other hand, any instrument that constrains the nuclear powers is a good thing. Treaties such as the INF serve a purpose. In addition to getting rid of missiles and launchers back in 1991, the treaty also provided verification and inspection protocols which require communication and cooperation among the adversarial powers—this is a good thing.

At the very least, the INF Treaty serves a good purpose if only in the “things not getting worse” category.

In the decades since its passage, actions on both the US and Russian side have undermined confidence in the treaty—technological advances that were unforeseen thirty years ago challenge the security assurances the treaty was meant to provide.

One possible positive outcome of the Trump administration’s declaration could be a new round of negotiations about security that addresses the issues raised back in 1977 in today’s context. In the meantime, the positive elements of the INF should not be abandoned by either side.

China should be heard. Welcomed to the table if they decide to participate. Should they decline to join the conversation until the US and Russia reduce their stockpiles to relatively parity—around 500 warheads and delivery systems, Russia and the US should listen carefully. Many experts in both countries believe such nuclear force levels are achievable with no reduction in security.

Trump’s initiative, regardless of timing or intent, could have unintended, positive consequences. Republican presidents have been successful in the past in advancing arms control agendas, and nuclear abolitionists can support those efforts as steps on the way to zero.

SO — TALK ABOUT IT

The 1988 INF Treaty grew out of a concern raised 10 years earlier. Before it was finalized, it had sparked conversations between US and Soviet leaders that included proposals for complete nuclear disarmament with an actual target date!

Any effort to rework the INF Treaty should address security concerns of Russia and Europe and should consider radical but achievable proposals—like the closure of NATO nuclear-equipped bases in Germany, Turkey, Netherlands, Belgium and Italy matched by Russian actions to reduce the ten-minute threat posed by current Russian missile systems.

If, in the course of these discussions, other arms control or disarmament proposals arise, they should be considered in the context of the global desire to eliminate all nuclear threats reflected in the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons approved by 122 countries at the United Nations in 2017. That Treaty is currently making its way through the ratification and accession processes in dozens of countries.

While the negotiations happen, stability is of critical importance—intemperate language or actions should be avoided on all sides. The issue of nuclear weapons and global security is too important to play politics with.

Ralph Hutchison

Coordinator, Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance

23 October 2018

On Tuesday, October 23^rd and for additional days, there will be technical testimony and cross-examination of witnesses on the proposal to expand by about 30 percent the amount of radioactive and hazardous waste allowed at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP).  The hearing is being rushed.  Over objections of many groups to the schedule and to the limitation of oral public comment to one location, it appears the New Mexico Environment Department wants to approve the change before the current Secretary leaves office on December 31, 2018.  The only location for testimony and public comment is in Carlsbad.  https://www.env.nm.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/FINAL-WIPP-Hearing-Notice-VOR-English.pdf and https://www.env.nm.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/FINAL-Hearing-Notice-VOR-Spanish.pdf

The public comment period will last until the end of the hearing, which may be Thursday, October 25^th.  Get your comments in NOW!  A sample public comment letter is available for you to use.  WIPP Amt of Waste public comment 8-8-18

The request by the Department of Energy (DOE) and its contractor, Nuclear Waste Partnership, would change the way the amount of waste has been measured for more than two decades. But DOE has not explained where the additional waste would be disposed since there is not space in the existing underground rooms, nor why the change is needed when WIPP is less than 55 percent filled.

Because the federal WIPP Land Withdrawal Act limits the amount of waste to 6.2 million cubic feet, how the waste is measured is important.  Waste emplaced at WIPP has always been measured based on the volume of the outer container.  That’s the way DOE has always reported to Congress how much waste is at WIPP, how DOE contractors have been paid and received performance bonuses, and the way that the WIPP Permit calculates the amount of waste.

The modification request would create an additional measurement, called the “Land Withdrawal Act TRU Waste Volume of Record [which] means the volume of TRU waste inside a disposal container.”

An unstated reason for the proposed measurement is that space for more than 1,000,000 cubic feet of waste has been forfeited or lost because of bad DOE management, poor contractor performance, and inefficiencies during the past 19 years of WIPP’s operations.  DOE has shipped and disposed of thousands of empty, or dunnage, containers and has intentionally not filled containers to capacity.

Technical witnesses at the hearing will be Ricardo Maestas for the Environment Department; Don Hancock and George Anastas for Southwest Research and Information Center, http://www.sric.org/;  Steve Zappe, who was the WIPP permit writer for more than 15 years, as an individual; and DOE contractors, Bob Kehrman and Mike Walentine, http://nwp-wipp.com/.  Those organizations and individual, Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety, http://nuclearactive.org/, and Nuclear Watch New Mexico, https://nukewatch.org/, can cross-examine witnesses.

Public comment will be held at 5 pm each day. The hearing begins at 9 am on Tuesday, October 23^rd in Room 153 of the New Mexico State University Carlsbad Branch, 1500 University Drive, in Carlsbad.

In an effort to save an estimated $40 billion in costs associated with high-level radioactive waste cleanup, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) proposes to change the definition of the most dangerous form of radioactive waste.  The estimated cleanup bill for DOE’s major sites, including three in New Mexico, is over $250 billion.  If the definition is changed, there will be more pressure to expand the types of waste allowed to be shipped and disposed of at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), located in southeastern New Mexico.  DOE requests your concerns and opinions.  Comments are due to HLWnotice@em.doe.gov by Monday, December 10^th.  https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/10/10/2018-22002/request-for-public-comment-on-the-us-department-of-energy-interpretation-of-high-level-radioactive

Congress defined high-level waste in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982.  DOE is proposing to create two categories of high-level waste… high-level waste and non-high-level waste.

In September 2017, the Energy Communities Alliance (ECA) released a report entitled, “Waste Disposition:  A New Approach to DOE’s Waste Management Must Be Pursued,” which claims the $40 billion savings.  It does not provide any data to support its claim.  Nevertheless, the ECA presents a number of ideas about what DOE could do to expand the types of waste that could go to WIPP, including changing the definition of high-level radioactive waste.  https://static1.squarespace.com/static/55c4c892e4b0d1ec35bc5efb/t/59ce7384cd39c3b12b97f988/1506702214356/ECA+Waste+Disposition+Report.pdf

The ECA’s mission is to bring “together local government officials to share information, establish policy positions, and promote community interests to address an increasingly complex set of constituent, environmental, regulatory, and economic development needs.”  http://www.energyca.org/  In April, DOE renewed its five-year grant to ECA.  One of its tasks is to “update and publish special research reports on environmental cleanup issues.”

High-level radioactive waste is generated by reprocessing irradiated fuel rods from nuclear power plants at DOE sites, including at Hanford.  Reprocessing removed plutonium and uranium from the fuel rods, which were then reused in nuclear weapons, and generated millions of gallons of highly radioactive liquids.  The U.S. stopped reprocessing in 1988.  At Hanford, located on the Columbia River, there are 177 tanks storing 56 million gallons of radioactive sludge.  One third of those have leaked, and some are currently leaking.

Changing the definition could result in shipping and disposing of Hanford tank wastes at WIPP site under a new name.

Tom Carpenter, Executive Director of the Seattle-based Hanford Challenge, described his concerns about DOE’s proposal.  He said, “The Trump Administration wants to save billions by renaming this waste, at the cost of leaving this waste in shallow land burial.  Over time, these long-lived radionuclides will be in our food, water and air, causing cancer and mutations for generations.  Of course you can save money by not doing the cleanup.”  https://www.hanfordchallenge.org/

Now is the time to submit your comments to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) about the proposed Waste Control Specialists/Interim Storage Partners/Orano project to bring 40,000 metric tons of commercial high-level radioactive waste from nuclear power plants located across the country to a site in west Texas, five miles east of Eunice, New Mexico.  If this sounds familiar, it is.  Just three months ago public comments were due to the NRC about a similar proposal by Holtec International.  Yes, southeast New Mexico and west Texas are being targeted by the nuclear industry with two proposed facilities within forty miles of one another.  Comments are due by Friday, October 19^th.  https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/09/13/2018-19928/interim-storage-partners-llcs-consolidated-interim-spent-fuel-storage-facility-correction

Thousands of New Mexicans have empathically stated that they do not consent to New Mexico becoming a national radioactive waste dumping ground for high-level waste.  In fact, more than 30,000 comments from people across the nation were submitted in opposition to the Holtec proposal.

Waste Control Specialists, a limited liability corporation, is asking NRC for a 40-year license to temporarily store the waste in Andrews County, Texas, with an opportunity to extend the license to 120 years.  https://www.nrc.gov/waste/spent-fuel-storage/cis/wcs/wcs-app-docs.html

Nevertheless, the federal government may never find a permanent place for the waste, with the real possibility of the proposed temporary storage site becoming a permanent site.  The NRC is asking for comments about the scope of the 766-page Waste Control Specialists environmental report, but it omits analysis of the long-term impacts of the waste being left there indefinitely. 

If the NRC licensed either or both of the proposed sites, over 10,000 overweight rail cars on rickety tracks carrying the dangerous waste would crisscross the country.  Although the specific routes would differ, transportation risks to the proposed facilities are similar.  The further away from the proposed sites the shipping routes are similar to identical.  Links to the proposed transportation routes are available at nuclearactive.org.

Waste Control Specialists estimates there will be 45 to 60 jobs during the operating phase.  This is a small number compared to the damage that could be done to the 28,000 oil and gas industry jobs and the 6,000 dairy industry jobs if there were a leak or accident.

Like Holtec, Waste Control Specialists also states that the federal government would be responsible for paying for transportation to, and storage at, the site, which is contrary to existing federal law.

Please submit your comments to the NRC at WCS_CISF_EIS@ nrc.gov about the inadequacies of the environmental report and what should be included in the agency’s draft environmental impact statement.  An action alert and comment letter are available at http://nonuclearwasteaqui.org/

Citing the proximity of Santa Fe County to Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), the Santa Fe County Commission unanimously approved a letter to Department of Energy Secretary Rick Perry asking him to suspend the implementation of the new DOE Order 140.1.  https://www.santafecountynm.gov/documents/agendas/packet_materials/bccpacket9-25-2018part7.pdf  The new order restricts the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, an independent federal agency, access to information, personnel, and facilities at some of the most dangerous nuclear facilities across the country, including LANL.  https://www.directives.doe.gov/news/o140.1-interface-with-the-dnfsb-news  

The order, entitled, “Interface with the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board,” was issued in May without opportunity for public review and comment.  Implementation at DOE’s three defense nuclear facilities in New Mexico – Los Alamos National Laboratory, Sandia National Laboratories, and the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant – has already been detrimental.

Congress established the Board in 1988 after numerous disclosures about worker and public health and safety issues at the nuclear weapons facilities.  Its statutory mission is to “provide independent analysis, advice, and recommendations to the Secretary of Energy … in providing adequate protection of public health and safety at defense nuclear facilities.”

On September 5^th, U.S. Senators Tom Udall and Martin Heinrich wrote to Secretary Perry urging him to suspend the new order, hold hearings in impacted communities, and after responding to the comments received from the Board and the public, to then “reissue an order the fully complies with [the Board’s] legal authority to continue to protect workers and the community.”  https://www.abqjournal.com/1217797/senators-suspend-rule-on-nuke-safety-board-access-ex-letter-to-sec-rick-perry-notes-that-members-of-the-dnfsb-have-not-been-able-to-review-changes.html

To support the requests of Senators Udall and Heinrich and the Santa Fe County Commission, please use the sample public comment letter at nuclearactive.org to ask Secretary Perry to hold public hearings to explain the order and its implementation and receive public comments from those living in nearby communities.  f Perry DOE O 140.1 sample public comment ltr Please also email your letter to the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board at hearing@dnfsb.gov  They are accepting public comments about DOE Order 140.1 until close of business on Friday, September 28, 2018.

On Tuesday the Santa Fe County Commissioners also took another step to protect our lives, land, and water from radioactive and hazardous materials.  They unanimously passed a resolution to oppose two proposals to bring all of the existing and future commercial high-level waste to southeast New Mexico and west Texas for storage.  The resolution states, “Santa Fe County does not support or consent to consolidated interim storage of radioactive waste in New Mexico or Texas, or the transportation of high-level radioactive waste on our railways or highways for the purpose of consolidated storage or permanent disposal of high-level radioactive waste in New Mexico or Texas.”  Resolution 2018-103   https://www.santafecountynm.gov/documents/agendas/packet_materials/bccpacket9-25-2018part9.pdf 

The resolution is similar to recent resolutions passed in New Mexico by the Albuquerque City Council https://cabq.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3495456&GUID=DCABFA0F-F6B1-40F1-B244-54F3429F38A5&Options=ID|Text|Attachments|Other|&Search=holtec , the Bernalillo County Commission, the City of Las Cruces http://publicrecords.las-cruces.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=1790249& , the Town of Lake Arthur, and the City of Jal.

In a hurry to approve permits for nuclear facilities before the end of the year, the Martinez Administration is saying no to requests for more time for the public to prepare for the hearings.  The applicable regulations are specific about the amount of time needed before certain hearing processes begin.  The Administration, however, is rushing to sign off on the permits before they leave office on Monday, December 31^st at midnight.

The hearings involve a groundwater discharge permit for Waste Control Specialists and a proposed 30 percent expansion of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP).  There are others in the queue.

For plans to expand the amount of radioactive and hazardous waste disposed of at WIPP, the public comment period ended on September 20^th.   It is expected that a notice of hearing will be mailed on September 22^nd, with a public hearing scheduled for October 23^rd, only 31 days later, in Carlsbad.

The regulations require when there is a request for a public hearing that negotiations take place between the Environment Department, the facility, and the public to attempt to resolve the issues.  Negotiations generally cut down on the issues going to hearing.  While the Department’s practice has been to hold negotiations before a notice of hearing is mailed out, it plans to begin negotiations on Monday, September 24^th.  Objection to negotiations and hearing schedule091918 final         http://nuclearactive.org/public-comment-deadline-nears-on-proposed-major-wipp-expansion/    and     https://www.env.nm.gov/hazardous-waste/wipp/, scroll down to see August 6, 2018 entries.

Another permit is for groundwater discharges from the Waste Control Specialists radioactive and hazardous waste dump, located in Texas, on the New Mexico-Texas border, just a few miles east of Eunice.

The public hearing is scheduled to begin at 1 pm on Tuesday, October 2^nd, at the Eunice Community Center.  Opportunities for public comment will be available in the evening and at times during the day on Tuesday, Wednesday, and possibly through Thursday.

People who need rides to the hearing are invited to arrange transportation by calling (505) 986-9284.

Citizens for Alternatives to Radioactive Dumping, the Alliance for Environmental Strategies, and other groups and individuals submitted extensive comments about the draft permit and requested a public hearing.  Their comments pointed out the lack of almost any monitoring or other protective provisions in the latest draft permit.

The groups also raised concerns about the gross problems with the collection of documents that are found in the administrative record and its index, which serve as the basis for the permit.  The groups found the record to be “incomplete, inconsistent, and inadequate to allow the public to fully understand and present technical testimony upon which the Secretary of the Environment will make a final determination approving or disapproving [the permit].”  https://www.env.nm.gov/gwqb/public-notice/, scroll down to “Waste Control Specialists, DP-1817.”

Because of these concerns and others, on September 17^th, the groups filed a motion for a continuance of the hearing process.  Affidavit-DeborahReade_DP-1817    and      MotionforaContinuanceSept17_2018_DP-1817

The hearing officer determined that the motion would be heard at the beginning of the October 2^nd hearing.

The Department of Energy (DOE) issued a new order restricting the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board access to some of the most dangerous nuclear facilities across the country. Its implementation at DOE’s three defense nuclear facilities in New Mexico has been detrimental.  https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/white-house-hobbles-nuclear-weapons-safety-agency/?utm_source=AM+Nukes+Roundup&utm_campaign=b1f3244dc5-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_07_25_12_19_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_547ee518ec-b1f3244dc5-391738229

(Courtesy of WIPP) mpetroski@abqjournal.com

As a result, CCNS launched a campaign to ensure DOE holds public hearings to explain the order and its implementation in communities near Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), Sandia National Laboratories, and the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP).  We need your help – to support the campaign please, f Perry DOE O 140.1 sample public comment ltr

The order, entitled, “Interface with the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board,” was issued in May, without public notice and opportunity to comment.  https://www.directives.doe.gov/news/o140.1-interface-with-the-dnfsb-news

Congress established the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board in 1988 after numerous, eye-opening disclosures about worker and public health and safety issues at the DOE nuclear weapons facilities.  Its statutory mission is to “provide independent analysis, advice, and recommendations to the Secretary of Energy … in providing adequate protection of public health and safety at defense nuclear facilities.”  https://www.dnfsb.gov/

For the past 30 years, the Board has overseen and reported about both worker safety and public health and safety issues.  The new Order limits the Board’s oversight to public health and safety.  The restriction does not allow the Board to do its work efficiently and effectively.

At an August 28^th Board hearing in Washington, DC about the Order, Board member Joyce Connery explained the intersectionality of worker and public health and safety.  She said, “Low-level events … may impact only the workers prior to a series of failures which could ultimately lead to a release of [contaminants] off-site.  If I cannot evaluate all the layers of defense in-depth to understand where potential weaknesses exist, I cannot make a determination of adequate protection for the public.”  https://www.dnfsb.gov/public-hearings-meetings/august-28-2018-public-hearing

After the hearing, U.S. Senators Tom Udall and Martin Heinrich of New Mexico wrote to the key members of the Senate Appropriations Energy and Water Subcommittee requesting that language be included in the final bill requiring DOE to suspend DOE Order 140.1.  Instead, DOE must brief Congress within 30 days of passage of the final appropriations bill, which is anticipated to be on the President’s desk soon.  https://www.tomudall.senate.gov/news/press-releases/udall-heinrich-secure-provision-to-prohibit-nuclear-safety-board-staff-cuts-and-reorganization

Nevertheless, on September 5^th, the Senators wrote to DOE Secretary Rick Perry urging him to suspend the new order, hold hearings in impacted communities, and after responding to the comments received from the Board and the public, to then “reissue an order the fully complies with [the Board’s] legal authority to continue to protect workers and the community.”  https://www.abqjournal.com/1217797/senators-suspend-rule-on-nuke-safety-board-access-ex-letter-to-sec-rick-perry-notes-that-members-of-the-dnfsb-have-not-been-able-to-review-changes.html

To support the Senators, please consider submitting your own letter to Secretary Perry at the.secretary@hq.doe.gov, and copy it to the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board at hearing@dnfsb.gov.  Or use our sample comment letter, which may be modified.  Be sure to insert the date and your contact information.  f Perry DOE O 140.1 sample public comment ltr

September 20 is the deadline for public comments and request for a hearing on the proposal to expand by about 30 percent the amount of radioactive and hazardous waste allowed at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP). On August 6th, the 73rd anniversary of the U.S. dropping an atomic bomb on Hiroshima, Japan, the New Mexico Environment Department opened the public comment period on the request by the Department of Energy (DOE) and its contractor, Nuclear Waste Partnership (NWP) to change the way the amount of waste has been measured for more than two decades.

The request explains that the effect of the change would reduce the amount of waste emplaced in WIPP as of December 6, 2017 by 930,000 cubic feet, from 3,238,673 cubic feet to 2,307,708 cubic feet. Nevertheless, DOE has not explained where the additional waste would be disposed since there is not space in the existing underground rooms, nor why the change is needed when WIPP is less than 60 percent filled.

WIPP is a deep geologic repository for plutonium-contaminated transuranic waste, also known as TRU waste, created by manufacturing nuclear weapons. It located 26 miles east of Carlsbad, New Mexico.

Because the federal WIPP Land Withdrawal Act limits the amount of waste to 6.2 million cubic feet, how to measure the amount of waste is important. Waste emplaced at WIPP has always been measured based on the volume of the container. By container volume is the way DOE has always reported to Congress how much waste is at WIPP. By container volume is how DOE contractors have been paid and received performance bonuses. By container volume is the way that the WIPP Permit and permits in other states calculate the amount of waste.

The modification request would create an additional measurement, called the “Land Withdrawal Act TRU Waste Volume of Record [which] means the volume of TRU waste inside a disposal container.”

An unstated reason for the proposed measurement is that space for more than 1,000,000 cubic feet of waste has been forfeited or lost because of bad DOE management, poor contractor performance, and inefficiencies during the past 19 years of WIPP’s operations. Because of poor planning and other inefficiencies, DOE has shipped and disposed of many empty, or dunnage, containers; has not filled containers to capacity; yet the contractors have been paid fully – and in some cases received bonus. Don Hancock, of Southwest Research and Information Center, explained his concern about expanding WIPP. He said, “For the Environment Department to allow much more waste risks the health and environment for all New Mexicans.”

Public comments can be emailed to ricardo.maestas@state.nm.us by Thursday, September 20th.  Here is a sample letter for your use: WIPP Amt of Waste public comment 8-8-18

Despite submitting an application to renew the individual stormwater permit for Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) in March 2014, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in Dallas has yet to act.  As a result, the Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Environmental Management Office announced this week at the fourteenth public meeting about the stormwater permit that they, along with their new contractor, N3B Los Alamos, would be submitting a revised application to EPA before the end of the year.

Stormwater is rain and snowmelt.  At LANL, stormwater can flow over hundreds of dumps that contain radioactive, hazardous and toxic pollutants and move the contaminants through the canyons towards the Rio Grande.

Because LANL was discharging stormwater without a permit, in February 2008, the Communities for Clean Water (CCW) filed a successful Clean Water Act citizens’ lawsuit against DOE for stormwater violations at LANL.  The settlement requires LANL to hold the semi-annual meetings, as well as establish a dedicated website for the permit https://www.lanl.gov/environment/protection/compliance/individual-permit-stormwater/index.php among other things.  http://ccwnewmexico.org/ and http://ccwnewmexico.org/victories/

The original permit was issued on November 1^st, 2010, and expired on March 31^st, 2014.  DOE and LANL, as co-permittees, submitted a renewal application on March 27^th, 2014.  Nearly one year later, EPA issues a draft permit for public review and comment and the co-permittees, CCW, and the public submitted comments.  Then the co-permittees and CCW, along with the New Mexico Environment Department and EPA, met to resolve the many issues raised by the EPA’s draft permit.  Many days were spent in successful negotiations over the finer technical points in the permit.  Nevertheless, issuance of the renewal permit has been pending for three and one-half years.

During this time, the co-permittees completed a sampling implementation plan process with the Environment Department by visiting the 400 monitoring sites under the permit.  In some cases, they moved the monitoring location to better capture the pollution.  They also installed remote telemetry units on 125 sampling units located in the canyons that use radio signals to indicate that a sample has been collected, thus saving time and resources.

In 2006, CCW formally organized after several community organizations joined forces to address water contamination at LANL.  CCW Council members include Amigos Bravos; CCNS; Honor Our Pueblo Existence, or HOPE; the New Mexico Acequia Association; the Partnership for Earth Spirituality; and Tewa Women United.  CCW brings together these separate organizations to have a collective and powerful impact on protecting and restoring water quality downstream and downwind from LANL.  http://ccwnewmexico.org/history/

The co-permittees will hold meetings with CCW and the Environment Department to discuss the revised permit application before submission to EPA.

On Saturday, September 1st, the Regeneration Fest:  Youth Water Protectors Gathering will take place from 11 am to 3:30 pm at the Española Healing Food Oasis, 720 Vietnam Veterans Memorial Park Road, Española, NM.  Families are welcome!  This gathering is focused for middle schoolers, and young adults in their 20s – but younger and older people may also join this important and fun day! The event is hosted by Communities for Clean Water (CCW), Tewa Women United, CCNS, and others as part of the series of events and conversations intended to increase public awareness, education, and empowerment around the issue of the hexavalent chromium plume that has been found in the watershed.   All events are designed to prepare our communities for the New Mexico Environment Department public hearing that is scheduled for November 7 and 8, 2018 in Los Alamos.  Sept1YouthWaterProtectorsEvent_flyer