Nukewatch

Working for a nuclear-free future since 1979

  • Issues
    • Direct Action
    • Environmental Justice
    • Nuclear Power
      • Chernobyl
      • Fukushima
    • Nuclear Weapons
    • On The Bright Side
    • Radiation Exposure
    • Radioactive Waste
    • Renewable Energy
    • Uranium Mining
    • US Bombs Out of Germany
  • Quarterly Newsletter
    • Quarterly Newsletter
    • Newsletter Archives
  • Resources
    • Nuclear Heartland Book
    • Fact Sheets
    • Reports, Studies & Publications
      • The New Nuclear Weapons: $1.74 Trillion for H-bomb Profiteers and Fake Cleanups
      • Nuclear Power: Dead In the Water It Poisoned
      • Thorium Fuel’s Advantages as Mythical as Thor
      • Greenpeace on Fukushima 2016
      • Drinking Water at Risk: Toxic Military Wastes Haunt Lake Superior
    • Nukewatch in the News
    • Links
    • Videos
  • About
    • About Nukewatch
    • Contact Us
  • Get Involved
    • Action Alerts!
    • Calendar
  • Donate

May 4, 2015 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

WIPP’ed Energy Department Shirks Responsibility for Leak

Nukewatch Quarterly Spring 2015

The US Department of Energy (DOE) has appealed the $54 million in fines the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) imposed December 6 for 30 permit violations that led to the radioactive waste barrel explosion and radiation release at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) near Carlsbad on Feb. 14, 2014. Calling the fines “capricious,” federal officials also threatened to pay them from the cleanup fund already allocated toward relieving New Mexico of the radioactive burden it has borne since it began hosting US nuclear weapons development with the Manhattan Project more than half a century ago.

“Essentially, DOE is threatening to punish states by doing less cleanup work if states attempt to hold it accountable for violating federal and state environmental laws,” NMED Secretary Ryan Flynn said February 20. Frustrated by the federal agency’s refusal to take responsibility for the gross mismanagement at its WIPP and Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) facilities, Flynn confirmed that his office is preparing new compliance orders imposing well over $100 million in DOE fines.

“When you think of a container of radioactive material exploding without any kind of ignition switch that was stored above ground and transported on highways, and you think about what could have occurred if it exploded at ground level at Los Alamos or on the road, I don’t think $54 million is too much to pay, if you’re talking about protecting New Mexicans and their lives,” Flynn stated.

Greg Mello of the Los Alamos Study Group has noted that the Obama administration’s proposed increase in nuclear weapons spending would pay “all the NMED-imposed fines a few times over.”

Last September a DOE report confirmed that LANL’s use of organic instead of inorganic kitty litter in packing material contributed to the barrel explosion and subsequent radiation leak that shut down WIPP and exposed almost two dozen workers to radiation a year ago. The report also attributed the policy change that called for “an organic” instead of “inorganic” litter to a handwritten note misread by the LANL procedure writer.

Officials estimate that cleanup of the WIPP site will cost upward of half a billion dollars and take until at least 2018 or 2019. As the nation’s only current option for storing high-level radioactive waste, the continued closure will significantly slow, if not halt, clean-up of early nuclear weapons production and testing facilities throughout the country. More than 500 of the 5,565 mis-packaged and mislabeled LANL waste drums, like the one that exploded, remain underground at WIPP.

—ASP

—AP, Jan. 10; Current-Argus (Carlsbad), Feb. 12; Albuquerque Journal, Feb. 9, 13 & 21, 2015.

Editor’s note: Nukewatch has covered the WIPP leak continuously over the past year; for more background on the situation, see our Spring, Fall, and Winter 2014 Quarterly issues, which are accessible online at www.nukewatchinfo.org. 

 

Filed Under: Environment, Newsletter Archives, Nuclear Weapons, Quarterly Newsletter, Radiation Exposure, Radioactive Waste

May 4, 2015 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Marshall Islands Vs. United States Dismissed, Appeal Pending

Nukewatch Quarterly Spring 2015

Last April, the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) boldly sued nine nuclear weapons states in the International Court of Justice for refusing to negotiate nuclear disarmament, in violation of the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty or NPT. (See Summer 2014 Quarterly.) The RMI also filed a separate suit against the United States in Federal District Court in California, alleging the US is violating legal obligations under the treaty, which was ratified by the US Senate in 1972. 

The case is raising awareness of the NPT just as arms control organizations, disarmament groups and international law activists prepare for the UN’s 2015 Non-proliferation Treaty Review Conference in May. Thousands of nuclear weapons opponents will descend on New York City April 24, 25 and 26 for meetings, rallies and marches.*

“The Marshall Islands are desperately trying to rescue the 1968 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty,” wrote James Carroll January 5 in the Boston Globe—and the NPT clearly needs saving. As John Burroughs, Director of the Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy told the New York Times, “There have never even been any multilateral negotiations to eliminate nuclear weapons.”

In the opening legal battle, lawyers for the RMI asked California’s Northern District federal court to reject the US government’s July 2014 claim that it cannot be compelled to comply with its NPT obligations. Then on Feb. 3, Federal District Judge Jeffrey White dismissed the RMI suit, ruling that the tiny state lacked standing to bring the suit, that the case was “nonjusticiable” because it involved a political question, and that the injuries claimed “could not be redressed by compelling the specific performance by only one Party to the Treaty.”

Attorneys for the RMI will appeal California’s lower court ruling while they pursue the cases at The Hague.

—JL

* See International Peace & Planet Conference, April 24-25, & register at <www.peaceandplanet.org>

Filed Under: Environment, Environmental Justice, Newsletter Archives, Quarterly Newsletter, Radiation Exposure, Radioactive Waste

May 4, 2015 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Fracking’s Radioactive Waste: North Dakota Considers Weakened Landfill Rules, Less Oversight

Nukewatch Quarterly Spring 2015
By John LaForge

Radioactive waste produced by hydraulic fracturing or “fracking” is making headlines all over gas land. The cover story of Nukewatch’s summer 2014 Quarterly reported some of the illegal dumping by fracking companies—on Indian Reservations no less—in North Dakota where a gigantic gas fracking boom is underway in the Bakken oil field.

National news coverage of the scandal led North Dakota’s legislature to consider changes to radioactive waste control law so that fracking’s contaminated wastes can be dumped in ordinary landfills.

One bill under consideration would permit fracking radioactive waste in state landfills to be contaminated with ten times the radioactivity that state law currently allows—as long as it’s covered with 10 feet of soil. The rad’ waste that’s not being haphazardly and illegally discard—no Victoria, nefarious dumping probably hasn’t ended—is now being trucked out of state at some expense.

House Bills 1113 and 1114—reportedly requested by the ND State Health Department—are being contested by some law makers and journalists who have questioned the right of the department to set its own rules.

The ND Newspaper Association and the ND Broadcasters Association complained that the bill eliminates requirements for public hearings and instead permits them “when appropriate” and even cancels public notification of the permitting process for disposition of radioactive materials.

Dave Glatt of the State Health Department told the Bismarck Tribune that the SHD commissioned Argon National Laboratory in Chicago to study the question and make recommendations. The department wanted to know “radiation limits that would be safe for workers and the public.” Glatt forgets that there are only legally permitted doses, no safe ones.

Radioactive isotopes that contaminate fracking industry waste and its machinery include radon, uranium-238, and thorium-232. According to the Health Department’s website, these long-lived pollutants come in six forms:

1) “Produced water,” which is injected underground but later brought to the surface as waste; 

2) “Sulfate scales,” which are hard, insoluble deposits that accumulate on frack sand and inside drilling and processing equipment;

3) Sludge and “filter cake” solids of mud, sand, scale and rust that precipitate or are filtered out of contaminated “produced water.” They build up in waste water storage tanks and in “filter socks”;

4) Filter socks, contaminated by “produced water”;

5) Synthetic “proppants” or sand; and 

6) Contaminated soil and machinery.

Locals are Worried

“We don’t want to have when this oil and coal is gone, to be nothing left here, a wasteland, and I’m afraid that’s what might happen” said Underwood farmer Gene Wirtz to KXNET News Reporter Ben Smith in January. Wirtz is worried about the increased radioactivity in local landfills. “Any amount of radiation beyond what you’re already getting is not a good thing,” he said to Smith.

A case in point came Jan. 6, 2015, when three-million gallons of waste water sprang from a North Dakota pipeline rupture, in Williams County north of Williston, the biggest ever in the current Bakken oil rush. Attempted containment of the leak was underway January 23 as berms were set up across Blacktail Creek to prevent the waste water from flowing into the Missouri River. The New York Times reported that the leaked waste water “may contain residue from hydraulic fracturing.” 

“Potential for harm” called “no problem” by Forbes

Writing Jan. 26 in Forbes online, James Conca turned upside-down the results of a recent Pennsylvania study of the risks of radiation exposure from gas fracking wastes.

The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection studied so-called “Technologically-Enhanced Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material,” or TENORM, and analyzed the levels of radioactivity associated with oil and gas extraction in the state.

Mr. Conca’s column was headed, “Radiation from Fracking? No Problemo.” And Conca wrote that the PDEP study found there is “no concern of radiation exposure from fracking wells for oil or gas.”

On the contrary, the PDEP study explicitly warns of increased radiation risk from various aspects of fracking. In particular, the PDEP report warned of:

• Limited potential for radiation exposure to the public and workers from the development, completion, production, transmission, processing, storage, and end use of natural gas;

• Potential radiological environmental impacts from fluids if spilled; and

• Little potential for radiation exposure to the public and workers from landfills receiving waste from the oil and gas industry.

The PDEP report recommended additional study of radiological impacts from the use of “brine” or “saltwater” waste, called “produced water” by the ND Health Dept., from the oil and gas industry currently used for dust suppression and road stabilization.

Although the Forbes article trivializes and distorts Pennsylvania’s findings, it did say this: “With 15 million Americans living within a mile from a fracking well, this is an important result.”

Filed Under: Environment, Newsletter Archives, Quarterly Newsletter, Radioactive Waste

January 15, 2015 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Nine Groups Sue NRC Over Failure to Obey 2012 Waste Ruling

Nukewatch Quarterly Winter 2014

Nine large environmental groups filed lawsuits in federal court Oct. 29 charging that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has violated earlier court findings.

The NRC has issued proposed rules that would allow high-level radioactive waste to pile up at reactor sites and would permit a generic environmental impact statement to be used in reactor license applications, regardless of the vast differences in size, type, location, population density and water use by separate reactors. The nine groups allege that the NRC’s proposed rules violate a 2012 federal court ruling that had reversed previous agency plans.

Filed in the District of Columbia, the earlier lawsuit resulted in halting US reactor licensing until the NRC finished a study of the impact of long-term storage of high-level reactor wastes at individual reactor sites. The government’s failure to site a centralized disposal site for the industry’s 141,000 metric tons of waste fuel means that reactor operators have to continue to store their extremely hot and radioactive wastes onsite for many decades.

Geoffrey Fettus, Senior Attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council, one of the plaintiffs, said, “The NRC disregarded the explicit direction of the DC Circuit [Court] to examine the environmental impacts of indefinite storage of [waste] fuel in the event there is no [permanent] repository. … Instead … the NRC created an expedient fiction that ‘nothing will ever change … and safe agency practices will persist forever, obviating the need for a [central] repository.’”

The lawsuit asks the court to order the NRC to do the work that the earlier decision required.

“Dr. Arjun Makhijani, an expert who analyzed the NRC rule for the nine groups, said, “Until the NRC has studied the … environmental impacts of [waste] fuel disposal, it should [not] allow the generation of more highly radioactive [waste] reactor fuel.”

Filed Under: Direct Action, Environment, Environmental Justice, Newsletter Archives, Nuclear Power, Quarterly Newsletter, Radioactive Waste

January 15, 2015 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

WIPP Update: More Information Surfaces on  February Radiation Leak at Country’s Only  High-Level Radioactive Waste Repository

Nukewatch Quarterly Winter 2014
By Arianne Peterson

Since Nukewatch’s Fall Quarterly update on the February barrel explosion that caused a radiation leak at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) near Carlsbad, New Mexico, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests made by Santa Fe’s New Mexican newspaper have revealed more about the gross negligence that led to the leak, exposing at least 20 workers—and the public—to radiation released from the underground repository.

“Waste Drum 68660”, the barrel that ruptured on Feb. 14 and caused the airborne radiation release, was packed with radioactive waste on Dec. 4, 2013, as part of clean-up efforts at the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) and shipped to WIPP for permanent disposal. As Nukewatch reported in the Summer Quarterly, the barrel was one of many that had been packed with a wheat-based, organic “kitty litter” rather than the clay-based litter that had formerly been used to absorb liquid and neutralize waste in the barrels. Organic material is commonly known among industry chemists to react with the nitrate salts in the waste. Additionally, a WIPP briefing paper obtained by the New Mexican reveals that Drum 68660 contained waste from a batch with an unusually acidic pH of zero. Rather than following the lab’s guidelines and taking time to determine the proper treatment of such acidic waste, the lab’s contractors took shortcuts and added the wrong neutralizer to the barrel. An internal LANL memo from May 21 revealed that the drum’s main ingredients, including the organic litter and the neutralizer, matched the makeup of patented plastic explosives.

The Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) celebrated this 1000th shipment of plutonium-laden weapons production waste to WIPP in 2012, hailing it as a milestone in hurried efforts to pack and remove the waste before the 2014 fire season. LANL photo.

If the lab had labeled Drum 68660 with its true ingredients, it would not have met federal transportation standards to make the 330-mile trip on public roads to WIPP, nor would it have met the repository’s own acceptance criteria. But the documents sent with the drum were deeply flawed, failing to mention anything about the extraordinarily high acidity level or the neutralizer, and mischaracterizing the volatile organic litter, presenting it as the regular, clay-based version. According to the FOIA emails, LANL did not let WIPP officials know about the volatile ingredients described in the May 21 memo until May 27, when someone from LANL leaked the memo to them—presumably out of concern that WIPP was scheduled to send staff underground on May 28 to sample the area where the barrel ruptured.

“I am appalled that LANL didn’t provide us this information!” wrote Dana Bryson, Deputy Manager of the Department of Energy’s field office in Carlsbad, in an email to a WIPP manager sent after she learned of the memo. As a result of the memo leak, the May 28 sampling plan was postponed until May 30—and the LANL-based employee who shared it with WIPP was reprimanded.

When Drum 68660 was packed in December 2013, LANL was under a deadline imposed by New Mexico’s governor, Susana Martinez, to remove radioactive waste—including gloves, machinery, and equipment from Cold War-era weapons production—from an area called “The Hill” that had been threatened by a fire in 2011. Los Alamos National Security LLC, the consortium of private companies that runs LANL, was rushing to package and ship the waste before June 30, 2014, in an effort to avoid another fire season and to help secure an extension of its $2.2 billion Energy Department contract. (Since the operation of LANL was privatized in 2007, annual compensation for its top executive has tripled to over $1.5 million.) Ironically, of course, the shortcuts the lab took in packaging the waste probably caused the failure and shutdown of the country’s only high-level radioactive waste repository, making it impossible for them to meet the deadline.

Neither LANL nor its waste packaging subcontractor, EnergySolutions, has publicly acknowledged the reason for the change from regular clay-based material to the volatile organic kitty litter used in packing Drum 68660. Internal emails obtained by the New Mexican, however, reveal an explanation that may be shockingly simple: a “typographical error.” A policy manual revision approved by LANL that took effect on August 1, 2012, specifically required waste packagers to “ensure an organic absorbent (kitty litter) is added to the waste” (emphasis added) for drums containing nitrate salts, which react with organic materials. In an email to a colleague, Mark Pearcy, who evaluates waste that is to be stored at WIPP, implied that the policy manual revision accidentally included the word “organic” instead of the intended “inorganic.”

“General consensus is that the ‘organic’ designation was a typo that wasn’t caught,” Pearcy wrote. Oddly, the policy change was made just after a visit made by Governor Martinez to commend LANL for staying on track to meet its waste shipment deadline. In any case, the new policy took effect almost immediately, with waste packagers using wheat-based litter as early as September 2012—meaning that the number of incorrectly labeled drums containing the potentially explosive mixture number up to 5,565.

At the same time LANL was speeding up its packaging process, in 2012 and 2013, it was rebuffing attempts made by the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) to carry out regular inspections and audits to ensure the facility was complying with its state permits. NMED officials claim they were told to stay out of the waste handling facility because they did not have the appropriate training to be around the radioactive waste. On Dec. 6, following a nine-month investigation, NMED announced it had found 13 permit violations at WIPP and 24 at LANL. The state imposed civil penalties in the amounts of $17.6 million and $36.6 million, respectively, on the facilities.

According to the recovery plan released by the Energy Department in September, officials were sending workers into the underground WIPP facility four times a week with plans to resume daily entries. Experts have raised concerns that not only are other mislabeled barrels with dangerous ingredient combinations still remaining in the site, but temperatures in the storage area following the rupture of Drum 68660, which reportedly soared to 1,600 degrees Fahrenheit, may have made their contents even more volatile. Though WIPP operators assure workers the facility is safe for them to enter, they have not responded to requests from the workers’ union to provide safety reports that include the detailed risk and radiation measurement numbers.

Official estimates on the cost of the clean-up at WIPP, which experts have called conservative, are around $500 million. With 5,564 more potentially explosive radioactive waste barrels spread throughout nuclear facilities in the Southwest, no one knows what the negligence of the Energy Department and its contractors will ultimately cost us.

—Albuquerque Journal, Nov. 13 & Dec. 6; New Mexican (Santa Fe), Nov. 15 & 29, 2014

Filed Under: Environment, Newsletter Archives, Nuclear Power, Quarterly Newsletter, Radiation Exposure, Radioactive Waste

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 60
  • 61
  • 62
  • 63
  • 64
  • …
  • 67
  • Next Page »

Stay Connected

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Subscribe

Donate

Categories

  • B61 Bombs in Europe
  • Chernobyl
  • Counterfeit Reactor Parts
  • Depleted Uranium
  • Direct Action
  • Environment
  • Environmental Justice
  • Fukushima
  • Lake Superior Barrels
  • Military Spending
  • Newsletter Archives
  • North Korea
  • Nuclear Power
  • Nuclear Weapons
  • Office News
  • On The Bright Side
  • Photo Gallery
  • Protect the Water Close Xcel's Monticello Reactor
  • Quarterly Newsletter
  • Radiation Exposure
  • Radioactive Waste
  • Renewable Energy
  • Social Issues
  • Sulfide Mining
  • Through the Prism of Nonviolence
  • Uncategorized
  • Uranium Mining
  • US Bombs Out of Germany
  • War
  • Weekly Column

Contact Us

(715) 472-4185
nukewatch1@lakeland.ws

Address:
740A Round Lake Road
Luck, Wisconsin 54853
USA

Donate To Nukewatch

News & Information on Nuclear Weapons,
Power, Waste & Nonviolent Resistance

Stay Connected

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

© 2026 · Nukewatch