The New Mexico Environment Department is attempting to eviscerate the public participation requirements provided in the New Mexico Ground and Surface Water Protection Regulations.  Reducing public participation is clearly the goal of the Martinez administration.  One glaring example is found in a document entitled, “Hit [L]ist for Regulation Changes,” which was released by the Department following an Inspection of Public Record Request made by the New Mexico Environmental Law Center.  Number One on the Hit List, created last November by the Department’s Ground Water Quality Bureau, is to “figure how to further reduce [public notice and participation requirement] efforts.”  GWQB HIT LIST FOR REGULATION CHANGES

This summer the Department released its initial draft changes to the regulations for public review and comment.  In August, CCNS, other non-governmental organizations and individuals submitted extensive comments to the Department.  20160817-ccns-20-6-2-nmac-comments

This week the Department announced that it would host two listening sessions, one in Las Cruces and one in Albuquerque, about their proposed revisions.  The Department is working to host additional sessions in Farmington and Roswell.  https://www.env.nm.gov/gwb/

The New Mexico Water Quality Act requires that if a person or entity wants to discharge a pollutant into water, they are required to obtain a discharge permit from the Department.  The regulatory process requires opportunities for public review and comment of the draft permit and an opportunity to request a public hearing.  Once issued, permits may be modified and are renewed every five years, both of which require additional public participation.

In order to change the regulations, the Department is required by state law to present the proposed revisions to the New Mexico Water Quality Control Commission.  Inevitably, there will be a public hearing before the Commission about the proposed changes next spring.

In the next week or two, the Department plans to post revised regulations on its website and to open a public comment period prior to submitting the final proposed changes to the Water Quality Control Commission.

The first listening session is scheduled for Tuesday, September 20^th in Las Cruces at the New Mexico State University, Environmental Health and Safety Office, the Academic Research C, Room 110, located at 1620 Standley Drive, from 5:30 to 7:30 pm.

The second listening session is scheduled for Thursday, September 22^nd in Albuquerque, at the Erna Fergusson Library meeting room, located at 3700 San Mateo Northeast, again from 5:30 to 7:30 pm.

Joni Arends, of CCNS, said, “If you are concerned about water, please attend one or more of the Department’s listening sessions and let your voice be heard.”

If you would like to receive updates about the Department’s process, please contact Steve Huddleson, manager of the Pollution Prevention Section of the Ground Water Quality Bureau, at (505) 827- 2936 or Steven.Huddleson@state.nm.us.  In the alternative, you may sign up to received “General News” from the Ground Water Quality Bureau at https://www.env.nm.gov/gwb/#GWQBnews (bottom of page).

N M Nuclear Safety Group Blasts Results of Government Reports / Public News Service

The truth was revealed at an August 17^th, 2016 public meeting that the Department of Energy (DOE) provided a secret $34,000 grant to the Community Advisory Group (CAG) for the Santa Susana Field Laboratory, a front group created to breach the DOE’s cleanup agreement for the contaminated nuclear reactor research and rocket test facility located on 2,850 acres in the California hills above the San Fernando and Simi Valleys in Ventura County.  20160831 Rocketdyne Cleanup Coalition Press Release and 20160829 PSR-LA to DOE Regalbuto CIF Scandal The Department of Energy (DOE), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the Boeing Corporation own the facility.  Elevated cancer rates have been found in neighboring communities. http://www.rocketdynecleanupcoalition.org/ssfl-cleanup-frequently-asked-questions/

For more than 20 years, the effective Santa Susana Field Laboratory Work Group met monthly and included representatives from Physicians for Social Responsibility – Los Angeles.  http://www.psr-la.org/issues/peace-and-security/cleaning-up-the-santa-susana-field-laboratory/ They developed expertise about the contamination, pathways for exposure, elevated cancer rates, and cleanup.  They educated their elected officials who then took action.  Julia_Brownley_Linda_Adams_March_9_of_2009

In the late 1990s, as part of a national settlement with community groups about cleanup at its sites, DOE established an independent funding mechanism to provide technical grants to non-profit organizations working on cleanup.  http://www2.clarku.edu/research/kaspersonlibrary/mtafund/ In its latest iteration, a five-year, $5 million dollar fund, called the Community Involvement Fund, or CIF, was established and was independently administered by the New Mexico Community Foundation.  http://cif.nmcf.org/about/ In August 2015, DOE abruptly stopped funding the CIF, after providing less than $2 million.

At the same time, DOE secretly provided a $34,000 “no strings” grant to the new front group, the Santa Susana Field Laboratory Community Advisory Group, comprised of officials of DOE and its contractors.  The funding was apparently secret so that U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer, a proponent of the cleanup, would not challenge the grant.

At the recent August 17^th, 2016 meeting, Community Advisory Group member Alec Uzemeck revealed that DOE would soon release a report with a list of grants, and “DOE is the one that made the grant for us.  They are the one who supplied the funding.”  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3XlYNdVPIo&feature=youtu.be&t=1m35s

Renee Villarreal, Director of Programs and Community Outreach for the New Mexico Community Foundation, was disappointed to hear the news from one of their grantee partners about this discovery.  She said, “Nontransparent funding decisions by DOE and lack of accountability for cleanup was specifically the reason why the CIF program was created in the first place.”

Villarreal continued, “It’s frustrating to learn that while [the New Mexico Community Foundation] was trying to get the CIF funding reinstated that was anticipated for the last year of the program, there was funding going to a group that is essentially undermining the cleanup commitment at Santa Susana.  It is obvious that DOE funding mechanisms are not transparent, and this kind of activity sends a clear message to communities dealing with legacy waste contamination, that DOE is not prioritizing their health and safety”.

DISCLOSURE:  CCNS received funding in 2003, 2004 and 2007 to produce the following reports, which are available at:  http://www2.clarku.edu/research/kaspersonlibrary/mtafund/in

Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety (CCNS)

Santa Fe, NM

Round 1

• New Mexico’s Right to Know: The Impacts of LANL Operations on Public Health and the Environment
  By Bernd Franke, Catherine M. Richards, Steve Wing and David Richardson
  April 2003

Round 4

• New Mexico’s Right to Know: The Potential for Groundwater Contaminants from LANL to Reach the Rio Grande
  By George Rice – July 2004

Round 5

• CCNS Response to LANL’s Letter of January 29, 2007 – Information Concerning Radionuclides in Water Supply Wells by Independent Registered Geologist Robert H. Gilkeson and Joni Arends, of CCNS – March 20, 2007
  • Attachment 1 – Predicted Plume Migration for Sources Releases at the Water Table Below Mortandad Canyon
  • Attachment 2 – Data Gaps Prevent Accurate Calculation of Contaminant Travel Times by Computer Models
  • Attachment 3 – DOE/LANL has Used Improper Fluid-Assisted Drilling Methods that Mask Detection of Groundwater Contamination for the Installation of the LANL Characterization Wells that are Planned to be Used as Monitoring Wells
• Letter from LANL to CCNS – Information Concerning Radionuclides in Water Supply Wells
  January 29, 2007
• Downstream from Los Alamos? Your Drinking Water is at Risk
  • En Español

Round 6 – Grant Received by Amigos Bravos, Taos, NM

• Historic and Current Discharges from Los Alamos National Laboratory: Analysis and Recommendations, Prepared by Amigos Bravos and Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety
  September 2006

In the fourth report released this month about documented problems with schedule, cost and risk management at the Department of Energy (DOE) sites in New Mexico, the latest addresses on-going management problems with the estimated $8.1 billion, high risk Life Extension Program for the Model B61-12 nuclear weapon.  See, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Inspector General, Office of Audits and Inspections, August 18, 2016 AUDIT REPORT:  National Nuclear Security Administration’s Management of the B61-12 Life Extension Program, DOE-OIG-16-15, http://energy.gov/ig/downloads/audit-report-doe-oig-16-15; Government Accountability Office (GAO) August 11, 2016 Report to Congressional Committees:  NUCLEAR SUPPLY CHAIN:  DOE Should Assess Circumstances for Using Enhanced Procurement Authority to Manage Risk, GAO-16-710, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-16-710; GAO August 9, 2016 Report to the Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate:  DOE PROJECT MANAGEMENT:  NNSA Needs to Clarify Requirements for Its Plutonium Analysis Project at Los Alamos, GAO-16-585,  http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-16-585;  and GAO August 4, 2016 Report to Congressional Committees:  NUCLEAR WASTE:  Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Recovery Demonstrates Cost and Schedule Requirements Needed for DOE Cleanup Operations, GAO-16-608, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-16-608.

The DOE Inspector General audited work being done at eight DOE facilities across the country with a focus on design facilities at Sandia National Laboratory, in Albuquerque, and Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL).  DOE expects the first life extended B61-12 nuclear weapon to be completed by March 2020.

The B61-12 Life Extension Program is a consolidated process for the replacement of nuclear and non-nuclear parts, such as detonator cables, to extend the life of this weapon for 20 years.  During this phase, the program involves designing new parts before an engineering phase leading to the first production phase.  New military capabilities, such as improved accuracy and the ability to change the height of the detonation, are being incorporated into the design.  http://energy.gov/ig/downloads/audit-report-doe-oig-16-15, p. 9.

Project management includes maintaining a detailed master schedule for all tasks being done across the country.  The master schedule should ensure that the project comes in on time and on cost.  Further, each site has its own schedule.  Under project management requirements, both schedules should align.

The auditors found that in some cases the schedules did not align.  For example, the auditors found a 17-month discrepancy between the master schedule and the LANL schedule for qualification of a primary main charge used in the nuclear explosive package.  http://energy.gov/ig/downloads/audit-report-doe-oig-16-15, p. 4.  The auditors also found discrepancies of 100 working days or more between the two schedules in 24 percent of the cases for components to be developed at Sandia and LANL.  http://energy.gov/ig/downloads/audit-report-doe-oig-16-15, p. 4.

Problems identifying risk to the cost, schedule and performance of the B61-12 and efforts to mitigate the risk were also highlighted.  Both the risks and the mitigation measures should be included in both schedules.  For example, testing newly designed components in flight tests and in extreme hot and cold thermal environments would mitigate the risk of the component failure.  The auditors found that 75 percent of the high to moderate risks identified at Sandia and LANL were not linked to the mitigation actions in the schedule.  http://energy.gov/ig/downloads/audit-report-doe-oig-16-15, p. 8 – 9.

Joni Arends, of CCNS, said, “This is the fourth criticalreport released this month about basic DOE project management problems for high-risk projects in New Mexico that cost astronomical amounts of taxpayer money.  Please contact your congressional members and ask them to look seriously at these problems and put a halt to these projects until project management problems are corrected.”

A new Government Accountability Office (GAO) report reveals that the Department of Energy (DOE), and its semi-autonomous National Nuclear Security Administration, did not learn the lessons about providing accurate cost estimates for the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement (CMRR) Project at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL).  http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-16-585  In 2005, the federal agencies estimated the CMRR Project to cost $975 million, with a completion date of 2017.  http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/678941.pdf, p. 3.  Yet recent estimates indicate that design, construction and equipment for the Radiological Laboratory, Office and Utility Building (RLUOB) and the proposed Wal-Mart sized Nuclear Facility would have cost approximately $7 billion, $1 billion more than previously disclosed.  http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/678941.pdf, p. 27.

The report was submitted to the U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Services on August 9, 2016, the 71st commemoration of the U.S. bombing of Nagasaki, Japan.

DOE built the RLUOB at a cost of about $400 million and in 2014, began operations.  In August 2014, DOE canceled plans to construct the Nuclear Facility because of the cost increases, including the growing knowledge of the seismic dangers on the Pajarito Plateau, where LANL is located.  Robert H. Gilkeson, an independent registered geologist, worked for years to bring attention to the seismic issues.  For example, see the Gilkeson and CCNS November 9, 2011 report, Deficiencies in Knowledge of Seismic Hazard for Proposed $6 Billion Chemistry & Metallurgy Research Replacement Nuclear Facility (CMRR-NF) at Los Alamos National Laboratory Need for Field Studies and a New Environmental Impact Statement, with four detailed figures.  f CMRR Seismic FS 11-09-11.  An estimated $500 million would be needed to make the seismic design changes.  http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/678941.pdf p. 4, footnote 9.

LANL is the only facility in the DOE’s nuclear weapons complex for manufacture of plutonium pits, or triggers, for nuclear weapons at the Plutonium Facility, or PF-4.  As part of the “modernization” of the nuclear weapons complex and at the direction of the Department of Defense and itself, DOE is charged with manufacturing 50 to 80 pits per year by 2030.  http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/678941.pdf, p. 2, footnote 6.

After the Nuclear Facility was canceled, DOE adopted a new plutonium strategy, called the “Revised CMRR Project,” to use PF-4 and the RLUOB for pit production.  http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/678941.pdf, beginning on p. 4.

The GAO report discloses that, “[DOE] will develop the capability to produce at Los Alamos an increasing number of new pits over time.  These pits will be of a different type than the pits produced earlier, so Los Alamos has started a development process to establish a pit production capability for a new pit type.”  http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/678941.pdf, p. 10.  In 2013, DOE “developed multiple experimental pits for life extension programs,” a program estimated to cost $13 billion for one warhead, the Interoperable Warhead-1.  http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/678941.pdf, p. 10, footnote 21.  Soon thereafter, LANL “paused pit production and other operations … because of nuclear criticality safety concerns.” http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/678941.pdf, p. 10, footnote 22.

Jay Coghlan, of Nuclear Watch New Mexico, stated, “Expanded plutonium pit production at LANL is not needed to maintain stockpile safety and reliability, but instead is a must for nuclear weaponeers who want to give existing weapons new military capabilities through so-called Life Extension Programs.  This GAO report is more evidence of how taxpayers’ money could be far better spent than on poorly planned, unnecessary and very expensive expanded plutonium pit production.”  http://nukewatch.org/pressreleases/NWNM_Pit_Production_PR-8-10-16.pdf

Attempting to annihilate public participation in surface and ground water permitting processes, last November, the Ground Water Quality Bureau of the New Mexico Environment Department put together a top ten “Hit [L]ist for Regulation Changes” to eviscerate the public’s due process rights.  GWQB HIT LIST FOR REGULATION CHANGES Hit List No. 1 reveals that the Environment Department wants to “figure how to further reduce [public notice and participation requirements] efforts.”

In June, the Department followed up with proposed changes to New Mexico’s water protection standards found in New Mexico Administrative Code Title 20, Chapter 6, Part 2 (20.6.2 NMAC) [https://www.env.nm.gov/gwb/#GWQBnews] that are now out for public review and comment.  Public comments are due to the Environment Department by 5 pm Mountain Daylight Time on Wednesday, August 17, 2016 to NMENV.GWQBrulerev@state.nm.us.  Sample public comments are available at http://www.nuclearactive.org.- Sample Comment Ltr Water Stds 8-12-16

The Hit List was revealed to the public through an Inspection of Public Records request filed by the New Mexico Environmental Law Center.  In addition to the Hit List, the Department released internal emails about proposed changes to the list of chemical and organic pollutants; research done to learn about the permit fees charged to polluters in neighboring states, and suggested regulatory language changes.

The New Mexico Water Quality Act requires that if a person wants to discharge a pollutant into water, they must obtain a permit by going through a process requiring public participation and opportunity for a public hearing.  Once issued, permits may be modified and are renewed every five years, both of which require public participation.

The Hit List asks, “Can we make a simple renewal if nothing changes -– just a formal letter indicating such instead of reapplying?”  The Water Quality Act requires public participation.  The Environment Department does not have the authority to issue a formal letter as a substitute for the permit renewal process.

The Environment Department is also proposing a definition for a new process, called a “discharge permit amendment,” that omits public participation processes.   Further, the Water Quality Act does not give the Department the authority to amend a discharge permit, only to modify or renew a permit.

Another Hit List item is about permit variances.  If a polluter cannot meet the water quality standards, they may ask for a variance from the Water Quality Control Commission, a commission created by the Water Quality Act.  The Commission may grant a variance, but not for more than five years.  There are public participation requirements for this process.  The Environment Department’s Hit List reveals that it wants to “remove the [five] year period of approval for variances – make the[m] for the life of the facility upon approval by the Department,” not the Commission.  The proposed changes would allow variances in perpetuity.

Further, the Hit List reveals that the Environment Department proposes to “[r]eview them internally every [five] years.”  A polluter would no longer be required to go before the Commission every five years to renew its variance – something that the Commission discourages.  They want the discharger to meet the water quality protection standards.  Further, the Department omits any criteria for its internal review.

Jon Block, of the New Mexico Environmental Law Center, said, “The Law Center shares many other organizations’ concerns over New Mexico’s environment and maintaining robust public participation in environmental decision-making.  NMED appears to be trying to curtail public participation in the decision-making process. We need to work together to oppose such changes to New Mexico ground water and surface water regulations in order to prevent that from happening.”  http://www.nmenvirolaw.org/ and for their analysis, go to: http://nmenvirolaw.org/site/more/cut_public_out_of_water_pollution_decisions

View the New Mexico Environment Department Proposed Revisions to state Surface and Ground Water Protection Regulations here – water_regs_infographic  Public Comments Due August 17, 2016

The Hazardous Waste Bureau of the New Mexico Environment Department has released documents for public review and comment about the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) and the yet-to-be-built Triassic Park Waste Disposal Facility, both located in southeastern New Mexico.  CCNS and our colleagues have prepared sample public comments for you to use and are available at http://nuclearactive.org/.  Simply download, fill in the yellow areas, modify, copy and paste into an email, and hit “send.”

The first document is about the Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) proposed modifications to the WIPP permit to update the contingency plan following the truck fire and explosion in February 2014, and reduce the amount of ventilation flow currently required when workers are emplacing waste in the mine.  Public Notice at http://www.wipp.energy.gov/rcradox/rfc/Public_Notice.pdf and Permit Modification Request at https://www.env.nm.gov/wipp/documents/160603.pdf

DOE is proposing to reduce the ventilation flow to below 35,000 standard cubic feet per minute, which is the minimum amount established to protect workers from exposure to volatile organic compounds (VOCs) found in the waste drums.  DOE says the modification is necessary in order to re-open WIPP by the end of the year.  DOE says they need the “flexibility” to reduce the flow so that they would not have to suspend waste disposal operations if the VOC levels rise above established levels.  Workers then would have to work in personnel protective equipment with respirators once the ventilation flow is reduced.

Comments are due by 5 pm Mountain Daylight Time on Monday, August 8^th, 2016.  To download a sample public comment, please go to:  WIPP-Sample-Public-Comment-8-4-16 and email to Ricardo.Maestas@state.nm.us

The second document is a draft permit for the construction and operation of a 35-acre landfill at the Triassic Park Hazardous Waste Facility, located on 480 acres of privately owned land between Roswell and Tatum in Chaves County, south of Highway 380.  Gandy Marley, Inc. is the owner of Triassic Park.  In 2002, they received a hazardous waste permit from the Environment Department for not only the landfill, but for facilities for storage and treatment of waste.  Although the facility was not built, they are now proposing to build a 553,200 cubic yard landfill for U.S. generated waste, waste generated in foreign countries, and waste generated on-site for disposal.  https://www.env.nm.gov/HWB/tpperm.html

Following the public hearing in 2001, the community participants filed a complaint with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Civil Rights alleging discrimination in the Environment Department’s permit proceedings.  EPA has yet to make a determination.  Last summer, the community participants, four other non-governmental organizations and one individual filed a lawsuit against EPA to get action on their long-standing discrimination complaints.  For more information, please visit http://sacredtrustnm.org/, http://sacredtrustnm.org/nmed-the-triassic-park-permit-just-as-bad-as-the-first-time/, http://sacredtrustnm.org/thirteen-years-counting-southeast-new-mexico-civil-rights-and-the-epa/ and http://nuclearactive.org/card-civil-rights-complaint-to-epa-about-triassic-park-thirteen-years-and-no-resolution/

Comments are due by 5 pm Mountain Daylight Time on Sunday, August 14^th, 2016.  To download a sample public comment, please go to:  Triassic-Park-Sample-Public-Comment-8-4-16-2 and email to Dave.Cobrain@state.nm.us.  NOTE: Additional sample comments will be available next week

To commemorate the 71st anniversary of the U.S. bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan with nuclear weapons on August 6^th and August 9^th, 1945, respectively, Pax Christi New Mexico is hosting their Annual Sack Cloth and Ashes Memorial on Saturday, August 6^th in Los Alamos, New Mexico.  People will gather around Ashley Pond, in the center of town, from 2 to 4 p.m.  Sack cloths, or burlap bags, and ashes will be provided.

After receiving instructions and a blessing from John Dear, participants will carry sackcloth and ashes and walk mindfully on Trinity Drive toward Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), the birthplace of the atomic bomb.  At 2:30 p.m., participants will sit down in silence for 30 minutes to meditate, pray and mournfully remember Hiroshima and Nagasaki and envision a day when nuclear weapons will no longer exist.  Afterwards, participants will walk back to Ashley Pond for reflection, music and speakers.

The use of sack cloths and ashes is the oldest symbol of protest, going back 3,000 years.  As described in the Book of Jonah, the people of Ninevah sat in sackcloth and ashes and repented for their sins.  On August 6^th, the people attending the event will repent for the mortal sin of war and nuclear weapons.

In 2008, John Dear described the event in Common Dreams.  He wrote, “You might think it strange that people resort to sackcloth and ashes.  But in a town where thousands of people build and perfect weapons of mass destruction, in a world of war, executions, poverty, starvation, nuclear weapons, and global warming, our gesture was an eminently sane thing to do.”  http://www.commondreams.org/views/2008/08/06/hiroshima-ninevah-and-los-alamos

Bud Ryan, an organizer of the event, invites you to join Pax Christi New Mexico and to take action.  He said, “If you can’t join us here in New Mexico, please write and/or call your two senators, your congressperson and President Obama and tell them you do not want the proposed $1 trillion dollar modernization and upgrade of our nuclear weapons.”

On Thursday, August 4^th from 4 to 5 pm, Bud Ryan and John Dear will be guests on “Living on the Edge,” a KSFR 101.1 FM radio show, with hosts David Bacon and Xubi Wilson.  You may listen live by going to http://ksfr.org/ and click on the “Listen Now” button.  There will be a discussion of the August 6^th event; nuclear weapons and Los Alamos National Laboratory; the 10-year, $1 trillion dollar plan to modernize nuclear weapons; why the international community needs to abolish nuclear weapons; and why the U.S. needs to implement its promises made when it signed the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty in 1970.

For more information, please contact Bud Ryan at bud@siochainworld.org or by phone at (505) 264-2838.

Last August to commemorate the 70^th anniversary, Pace e Bene, Peace + All Good, hosted a sold-out Campaign Nonviolence National Conference in Santa Fe.  In 1989, Pace e Bene was founded by the Franciscan Friars of California and is now an independent, nondenominational organization.  http://www.paceebene.org/  To learn more about their conference, please visit http://www.paceebene.org/programs/campaign-nonviolence/campaign-nonviolence-national-conference/  Videos of the Sack Cloth and Ashes events, as well as the conference speeches are, available on You Tube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNgZp3dmm4Y&feature=youtu.be&list=PL_hAAoZ6si8N5LW1vWEbS0rhzccf0dwYG

CCNS is forwarding this important Action Alert from our colleagues at the Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS).  With just a few clicks, you can protect our drinking water from EPA’s plan to allow radiation levels hundreds and thousands of times higher than the Safe Drinking Water Act allows during emergencies.  Please take a few minutes to email your comments to EPA by going to the NIRS website at http://org2.salsalabs.com/o/5502/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=23400.  The link will take you to the comment letter on the NIRS website.  With a few clicks, your comments will be submitted to EPA.

To read CCNS’s recent News Updates about this issue, go to:  http://nuclearactive.org/epa-proposes-thousand-fold-increase-for-radioactivity-in-drinking-water-following-emergencies-public-comments-due-monday-july-25th/ and http://nuclearactive.org/epa-proposes-thousand-fold-increase-in-radioactivity-for-drinking-water-following-emergencies-public-comments-due-july-25th/

Thank you!  Together we are making a difference!

CCNS

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing so-called “Protective Action Guides” for Drinking Water (Water PAGs) that will actually increase the danger to the public.

Enormous levels of invisible but deadly radioactive contamination would be permitted in drinking water for weeks, months or even years after a nuclear accident or “incident.”

Tell the EPA – withdraw the dangerous radioactive drinking water PAGs.

EPA is recommending allowable radiation levels hundreds and thousands of times higher than currently allowed in drinking water and at cleaned-up Superfund sites. Outrageously, EPA is expanding the kinds of radioactive incidents that would be allowed to give off these dangerously high levels and doses.

PAGs originally applied to huge nuclear disasters like the nuclear power meltdowns at Fukushima or a dirty bomb BUT NOW they could ALSO apply to less dramatic releases from nuclear power reactors or radio-pharmaceutical spills, nuclear transport accidents, fires or any radioactive “incident” …that “warrant[s] consideration of protective action.”

Stop the dangerous radioactive drinking water PAGs.

This is a deceptive way to circumvent the Safe Drinking Water Act, Superfund cleanup levels, and EPA’s history of limiting the allowable risk of cancer to 1 in a million people exposed, or at most 1 in 10,000 in worst-case scenarios. The PAGs protect the polluters from liability, not the public from radiation.

Tell EPA to reject the proposed Water PAGs and the 2013 PAGs.

You can find more information about the EPA’s proposal by following the action link above, and don’t hesitate to contact NIRS. You can also find background information on the dangers of radiation and the PAGs on NIRS’s website.

Thanks for all you do!

Diane D’Arrigo

Radioactive Waste Project Director

dianed@nirs.org

Stay Informed:

NIRS on the web: http://www.nirs.org

GreenWorld: (NIRS’ blog chronicling nuclear issues and the transition to a nuclear-free, carbon-free energy system) http://www.safeenergy.org

NIRS on Facebook:

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Nuclear-Information-and-Resource-Service/26490791479?sk=wall&filter=12

http://www.facebook.com/nonukesnirs

http://www.facebook.com/groups/nukefreeclimatefreemarch/

NIRS on Twitter: http://twitter.com/#!/nirsnet

NIRS on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/nirsnet

Please note: NIRS never sells, rents, trades, or otherwise makes our e-mail lists available to other organizations or individuals for any reason.

Nuclear Watch New Mexico amended its complaint against the U.S. Department of Energy and Los Alamos National Security, LLC, which alleges twelve cleanup violations of the 2005 Consent Order issued by the New Mexico Environment Department for Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), asking the federal court to invalidate the recently issued Consent Order because the Department did not hold a formal public hearing as required by federal and state hazardous waste laws and regulations.  http://nukewatch.org/importantdocs/resources/NukeWatch-First-Amended-Complaint-as-filed-20160719.pdf

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is the owner of LANL, and the Los Alamos National Security, LLC, (LANS), a privately held corporation, is the management contractor responsible for the cleanup work.

The 2005 Consent Order required cleanup of LANL by December 6, 2015, a deadline that was not met.  The 2016 Consent Order does not have a final compliance date.  https://www.env.nm.gov/HWB/lanlperm.html  It is open-ended and creates huge loopholes which allows DOE and LANL to declare that cleanup is too expensive or impractical.  This would result in radioactive and hazardous waste that is already leaking into the groundwater to be left in place.

The regulations, which were explicitly incorporated into the 2005 Consent Order, require that anytime a final compliance date is changed, the opportunity for a public hearing is available.  The new Consent Order does not provide a final compliance date.  Nuclear Watch argues that DOE and the Environment Department violated the public’s due process rights by not holding a formal hearing.

Holding a formal hearing allows the public the opportunity to present technical testimony, to cross-examine DOE, LANS and Department witnesses, and following the hearing, to prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law.  The public also has the opportunity to appeal the final decision to the New Mexico Court of Appeal.  Despite early assurances that the Department would hold a public hearing, the DOE and the Department agreed in the new Consent Order that there would be no hearing.

Further, on June 23, 2016, the Environment Department intervened in the case on the defendants’ side of DOE and LANS.  The next day, the Environment Department and DOE signed the 2016 Consent Order following a 60-day comment period.  Over 40 citizens, non-profit organizations, public officials and two Pueblos submitted comments.  CCNS and independent registered geologist Robert H. Gilkeson also submitted extensive comments questioning the changes.

Joni Arends, of CCNS, said, “The Nuclear Watch New Mexico lawsuit is essential to ensure that the public’s due process rights are protected. There are too many examples of the Martinez Administration attempts to shortcut public participation.  This is another.  Many thanks to Nuclear Watch New Mexico and their lawyers for stepping forward to protect our rights.”

For more specifics about the Nuclear Watch New Mexico litigation, please visit http://nukewatch.org.

Nuclear Watch New Mexico’s original lawsuit complaint is available at http://nukewatch.org/importantdocs/resources/NukeWatch-Complaint-Filed-20160512.pdf

The May 5, 2016 second notice of intent to sue (which is a good summary of the complaint) is available at http://nukewatch.org/importantdocs/resources/NukeWatch-2nd-NOI-DOE-LANS-5-5-16.pdf

The January 20, 2016 notice of intent to sue is available at http://nukewatch.org/importantdocs/resources/NukeWatch-NM-NOI-to-DOE-and-LANS-20160120.pdf