Follow us | |
"Remember Your Humanity" blog |
January 15, 2002 Secretary Pete Maggiore New Mexico Environment Department Harold Runnels Building 1190 South St. Francis Drive Santa Fe, NM 87502-6110 Re: We request cessation of nuclear waste disposal at Los Alamos National
Laboratory's "Area G" landfill and formal closure of the site,
as required by law. Dear Secretary Maggiore
-
The "Area G" nuclear and chemical waste landfill is located
one mile west of White Rock, NM, on Mesita del Buey in Los Alamos County.
With the exception of two waste categories, essentially all the
nuclear waste produced at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) is permanently
buried at Area G. [Footnote 1: The first category excepted
from local disposal today is waste known to contain chemical wastes regulated
under RCRA, a determination made by LANL without external review.
The second exception is waste which contains more than 100 nanocuries
per gram of transuranic elements (those elements with atomic number greater
than 92), which is called TRU waste. The
first category of waste is shipped to commercial off-site treatment and
disposal facilities; some of the radioactive portion of this RCRA waste
is shipped off site for treatment and is then returned for final disposal
at LANL. The TRU waste is placed
in long-term above-ground storage at Area G for eventual shipment to the
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), near Carlsbad, NM. Prior to the mid-1970s, all transuranic waste produced at LANL was permanently buried
at Area G and other LANL disposal sites.]
Area G, like the rest of LANL, is managed by the University of California (UC) for the Department of Energy (DOE). UC has held the operating contract for LANL
since 1943, and since that time has disposed
of nuclear and chemical waste at LANL in approximately 26 official material
disposal areas (MDAs, of which Area G is the
largest) and at hundreds of outfalls, firing sites, and other locations.
Area G is the only nuclear/chemical waste landfill at LANL still
operating at this time. It began
receiving waste in 1957, and so far has accumulated approximately 11 million
cubic feet of waste.
Further background information regarding Area G can be found in
Attachment 1.
Secretary Maggiore, we are writing to
respectfully remind you of your long-standing obligation to close Area
G to further nuclear waste disposal and begin a process of selecting remedies
for the site that meet, in both process and substance, all applicable
legal requirements of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Why Area G must close
As you know, Area G admittedly received, for at least the first
28 years of its operation if not also since then, a broad spectrum of
RCRA-regulated chemical wastes, as well as a wide variety of nuclear wastes. In 1980, LANL and DOE submitted a "Part
A" application for a RCRA hazardous waste disposal permit for all
of Area G and for all other sites within TA-54.
First the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and later
the New Mexico Environmental Improvement Division (EID), the predecessor
of the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED), granted LANL temporary
"interim status" permission to continue disposal of RCRA waste
anywhere in Area G, pending application and subsequent issuance of a full
operating permit for the site. This
was done despite a number of fundamental defects in LANL's
application for interim status, including the absence of the required
closure plan and of groundwater monitoring at the site.
This 1980 declaration on the part of LANL and DOE, which was resubmitted
with modifications on other occasions between 1980 and 1985, and the long
record of agency actions taken pursuant to that declaration since 1980,
has made this site in its entirety subject to the permitting and closure
requirements of RCRA.
No full permit application ("Part B") was ever submitted
by LANL for approval, however, and Area G was never permitted for operation.
Instead, in 1985, LANL withdrew its "Part A" application for
interim status for Area G, triggering RCRA's
closure requirements for the site. But instead of immediately closing
the site as required by law, state and federal regulators allowed Area
G to fall into a legal "limbo" from which it has never recovered.
Since 1985, EID, now NMED, having granted an "interim"
permit to LANL to operate the site as a chemical waste dump for the 1980
to 1985 period, has been under an obligation to either permit the site
- which is impossible, given the lack of an application -- or to formally
close it. The
question of whether Area G is or is not currently receiving regulated
chemical waste, in addition to nuclear waste, does not bear on this clear
requirement under RCRA to promptly, formally and fully close Area G, and
to develop, with full public participation, binding plans and commitments
to remove, partially remove, or to permanently stabilize Area G's wastes,
as RCRA provides. The argument
that neither permitting nor closure is necessary because this site allegedly
stopped receiving RCRA-regulated waste in 1985 is simply not germane,
given that for 28 years RCRA-regulated wastes, amounting to millions of
cubic feet in total volume, were disposed at the site. [Footnote 2: In 1985, LANL claimed
that Area G would receive no more RCRA-regulated chemical wastes. There has never been, however, any system of
independent regulatory oversight to verify this claim, and in the 1990s
there was at least one enforcement action by the NMED for the illegal
disposal of RCRA-regulated hazardous waste at Area G.
As discussed in the attachments below, LANL's
most definitive Area G waste inventory lists "unknown chemical wastes"
in every disposal pit used at Area G since 1985.]
This regulatory history is summarized with some additional details
in Attachment 2 to this letter.
In addition to RCRA-regulated wastes, Area G has received and may
still be receiving for permanent disposal other toxic chemical wastes,
such as pesticides, herbicides, and polychlorinated biphenols
(PCBs), which are regulated under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
While NMED does not regulate these substances at Area G directly, they
do add significantly to the overall risk posed by the site and must be
taken into account in site closure plans.
Many of these substances bioaccumulate
in the food chain; PCBs have already been found at levels dangerous to
humans in fish caught in Cochiti Lake and in Bandelier National
Monument. Environmentally, Area G is a poor site,
and should close
The waste interred at Area G is now buried, as it was in 1957,
in shallow unlined pits and shafts. When
the pits are nearly full, they are covered by about three feet of crushed
volcanic tuff, a sand-like material; the shafts are topped off with a
concrete plug. Most of the waste
has little or no primary containment.
There is no secondary containment, no cap, and no liner.
The total inventory of chemical and nuclear waste at the site is
unknown; its volume already exceeds the ultimate capacity of WIPP.
Secretary Maggiore, we would like to
emphasize that Area G is directly adjacent to springs and wetlands, and
is both directly upstream and upwind from White Rock, NM.
Surface water in Pajarito Canyon, immediately
adjoining and topographically below the dump, has been used as a potable
water supply from Anasazi times until the establishment
of the lab, and the site is ringed with ancient pueblo ruins and grave
sites. Shallow, as well as intermediate, aquifers are
found beneath Pajarito and surrounding canyons.
Groundwater is percolating downward from these aquifers to the
regional aquifer below, to springs along the Rio Grande, and to public
water supply wells, one of which is directly south of Area G.
As you know, analyses of public water supply wells in Los Alamos
have begun to show evidence of contamination by man-made radionuclides
such as tritium and strontium-90. A
test well directly adjacent to Area G ("R-22") shows contamination
of the regional aquifer by low levels of tritium and technetium-99. The site lithology
is not the best, either: below the tuff, the rock consists largely of
fractured basalt, which is highly unfavorable for retention and attenuation
of contaminants, should they reach groundwater.
In sum, Area G's natural setting is not favorable for the disposal
of nuclear waste. It is highly
unlikely that Area G or for that matter, any chemical or nuclear waste
disposal facility, could ever be permitted today at TA-54. The same is true for the rest of the Pajarito Plateau, which receives too much precipitation, is
too dissected by canyons with streams, and is too permeable for the permitted
disposal of chemical and long-lived nuclear wastes. The New Mexico Attorney General's office
has asked you to close the site
For many of these reasons, Lindsay Lovejoy of the New Mexico Attorney
General's office wrote to James Bearzi, Chief
of the NMED Hazardous Waste Bureau, on July 12 of this year, asking him,
among other requests, to close Area G.
That letter states, in relevant part, "We have pointed out to NMED that
these MDAs [Material Disposal Areas G, H, and
L] were long ago required to stop receiving waste, have an approved closure
plan, and close, but this has not happened.
MDAs G and L were required to close under 40 CFR §§ 265.112(d)(3)
and 265.113 (b) after NMED accepted LANL's withdrawal of its request for a permit for these areas
in April 1985, terminating interim status under 40 CFR § 270.73(a). MDAs G, H, and L,
were also required to close based on loss of interim status in November
1985, under 42 U.S.C. § 3005(e)(2) and 40 CFR
§ 270.73(c). However, to date they
have neither been closed nor permitted." Your agency has made no reply to this
letter. Many New Mexicans have requested closure
Secretary Maggiore, in addition to the
imperatives of law and of science, approximately 2,000 New Mexicans have
written to Governor Johnson and to you, respectfully requesting that you
close Area G. They have requested
that you hold public hearings, as required by law, regarding what is to
be done with the site and the waste in it, as well as regarding the cleanup
and stabilization of contamination at LANL generally.
We refer to the participants in the Los Alamos Study Group's "Can-Paign." What is
more, these people have not merely signed a petition, but have paid $3.00
for the privilege of placing that letter on a food can that could display
the letter in a way likely to be noticed and truly read by the Governor
and yourself. We have read that
appeal, appended here as Attachment 3, and we endorse it. We urge you to consider these requests carefully,
as indeed you are required to do by law. Alternatives to disposal at Area G
exist and are environmentally superior to current practice
Secretary Maggiore, we recognize that
there is no perfect answer to the question of what to do with the nuclear
waste that continues to be generated by Los Alamos programs. Certainly, making less new nuclear waste is
an option, and it is one that is engaging considerable attention at DOE
and LANL. While LANL's
stated desire to be a "zero-discharge" facility may not be practical,
there is certainly room for improvement.
A number of other alternatives for sequestration of waste could
also be mentioned, many of which, like generating less waste from LANL
programs, are environmentally superior to disposal at Area G.
In any lineup of alternatives, common sense dictates that under
no circumstances should the dumping of nuclear waste in shallow unlined
pits directly above our streams and drinking water supplies be an option
that is seriously considered. Although
it seems obvious enough, it is highly likely such poor practice will be
the only alternative seriously considered until Area G is closed.
This letter is not the place to exhaustively list these alternatives
or to discuss their relative merits. Certainly
NMED has no statutory responsibility for the generation and ultimate disposal
of LANL's non-RCRA-regulated nuclear waste,
unless of course that waste is being disposed at Area G, a site subject
to RCRA regulation.
One option DOE may select is to open a new nuclear landfill at
LANL. As you know, a
sequence of four new nuclear waste disposal sites have already
been planned for LANL, whether or not Area G is formally closed. The closure and post-closure commitments chosen
by you for Area G, with ample and substantive public involvement, will
undoubtedly help establish the precedent for the design and operating
standards for any new disposal facility at LANL.
Environmentally speaking, there is no downside to closure of Area
G. When - and how - you close Area
G will help determine the standard of environmental protection for any
new nuclear landfills at LANL.
We appreciate your attentiveness to this matter, which has gone
without regulatory attention for so long.
We respectfully request that you formally close Area G, as required
by law.
Sincerely, [signature pages follow] cc: Governor Gary Johnson Patricia Madrid, Attorney General Senator Jeff Bingaman Senator Pete Domenici Congressman Tom Udall Governor Harry Martinez, San Ildefonso Pueblo Governor Regis Pecos, Cochiti
Pueblo Secretary Spencer Abraham, Department of Energy Rick Glass, Manager, DOE Albuquerque Operations
Office President Richard Atkinson,
University of California Senator
Richard Polanco, Majority Leader, California
State Legislature John Browne,
Director, Los Alamos National Laboratory James Bearzi, NMED
Hazardous Waste Bureau Chief Mary
McInerny, Los Alamos County Administrator [Names, titles, organizations, and
addresses] Letter from Organizations to Secretary
Maggiore, December 15, 2001 Attachment 1: Background
Concerning LANL's "Area G" Nuclear
Landfill Prepared by the Los Alamos Study Group
According to DOE, Area G is slated to annually receive 44,000 drums'
worth of nuclear waste for permanent disposal. [Footnote 3: See <http://www.lasg.org/gfrm_a.html>
for a summary of official DOE disposal projections and maps of future
LANL disposal sites from its Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement
(LANL SWEIS, 1999). All other background information cited in this letter
is from DOE and LANL sources; most of it can also be found at the above
web site and related pages.] While actual disposal rates are at
present about only 43% of this amount, the rate of waste generation and
disposal is expected to increase as LANL begins its planned production
of plutonium "pits," the cores of nuclear weapons, and as ambitious
nuclear weapons testing programs come on line at Los Alamos. [Footnote 4: According to the LANL "Comprehensive
Site Plan 2000," more than $5 billion in new nuclear weapons facilities
are being planned for LANL, many of which will create additional nuclear
waste (see <http://www.lanl.gov/csp2000/>). As of this writing, this web site has been taken
down by LANL; its content is available at the Los Alamos Study Group office.]
Area G lies in LANL's Technical Area
(TA-) 54, and is 63 acres in size. It
contains at least 39 disposal pits and more than 209 shafts, which together
cover most of the site. When it
is completely filled, LANL anticipates dedicating four more sites to permanent
nuclear waste disposal, three in TA-54 and one on another mesa, in TA-67.
Historically, Area G has been a disposal site for dangerous wastes
of all types, including a wide range of toxic chemicals, pesticides, PCBs,
transuranic (TRU) wastes of the kind now destined for WIPP,
spent nuclear fuel and components of small nuclear reactors, and other
radioactive wastes of every description.
Both liquids and solids have been disposed at the site. LANL claims
to have only disposed of radioactive, and not chemical wastes, at the
site since April, 1985, although the New Mexico Environment Department
(NMED) has fined LANL for the subsequent disposal of hazardous waste at
the site, and LANL's own inventory of wastes disposed lists "chemical
waste of unknown nature and concentration" for every pit used between
1985 and 1992 (see note 5, next page). Beneath
the mesa surface, plumes of hazardous waste vapors and radioactive tritium
have mingled to cover much of the site. These plumes are close to permanent springs
and surface water, which are located immediately adjacent to and below
Area G, in Pajarito Canyon.
A recent deep test well drilled at the site ("R-22")
shows traces of two man-made radionuclides (tritium
and technetium-99). Small amounts
of plutonium and other radionuclides have been
documented in water- and wind-born sediment leaving the site, and in the
bodies of burrowing animals.
While Area G is likely to retain most of its buried waste for many
centuries, waste will escape through a number of processes. The infiltration of rain and snowmelt, which
percolates unimpeded through the waste, is enhanced by the greater permeability
of waste relative to the surrounding tuff and will be accelerated by future
waste subsidence. Infiltration
is also enhanced by impervious structures built on the portions of the
surface. Liquid and vapor transport through the fractured
rock beneath the site, which varies from one place to another in an unknown
and unknowable manner, cannot be predicted. Contaminants will also leave
the site through wind erosion, and through the cumulative actions of plant
roots and burrowing animals, both of which deposit radionuclides
at the surface. These natural processes,
while small in any given year, will have a cumulatively large effect over
the course of centuries. Human
intrusion, both intentional and inadvertent, cannot be ruled out, and
could lead to massive breaches of containment.
The rate of leakage is unknown; what is known is that the leakage
will eventually be total.
In addition to the waste permanently disposed, Area G now stores
some 46,000 drums' worth of TRU waste destined for WIPP. DOE hopes to ship all this waste, along with
newly-generated TRU waste, over the next three decades. In 1994, DOE estimated that the nuclear waste
at Los Alamos contained about 610 kilograms of plutonium. Most of this is at Area G. The fraction of this plutonium that is "permanently"
buried is unknown, since early LANL and DOE disposal records are sketchy,
but it is likely that hundreds of kilograms are so buried, making Area
G a sort of unpermitted "WIPP site." Letter from Organizations to Secretary
Maggiore, December 15, 2001 Attachment 2: Summary
of the Regulatory History of LANL's "Area
G" Nuclear Landfill Prepared by the Los Alamos Study Group
On November 19, 1980, almost exactly twenty-one years ago, LANL
began the application process for permitting its existing and planned
hazardous waste disposal sites on Mesita del
Buey, including Areas G, H, and L, under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and, later, the New Mexico
Hazardous Waste Act. The disposal
area for which LANL sought its first permit included all of what is called
"Technical Area 54" (TA-54), which contains Areas G, H, and
L and other sites, along with expansion space for all the disposal sites.
That permitting process has never come close to being completed;
nor has it been conducted in the manner required by law, with opportunity
for public comment. In its initial
application, LANL filed what is known as a "Part A" notification
of hazardous waste activity, a simple application no more than a few pages
in length, which purported to cover all hazardous waste activity at LANL. Despite the deficiencies subsequently uncovered
by inspectors (which included the total absence of any plan for closure
of the sites, or for any ground-water monitoring whatsoever), "interim
status" - a kind of temporary, standardized, stripped-down operating
permit - was granted to LANL for its active hazardous waste disposal sites,
including Area G in its entirety (63 acres).
This "interim status" lasted for five years, despite
enforcement actions first initiated by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and the New Mexico State Environmental Improvement Division
(now the Environment Department, or NMED) beginning in June of 1983 and
then, with somewhat greater effect, in May of 1984.
By May 1, 1985, LANL's complete application
for an operating permit ("Part B") for these disposal sites
was due. But instead of submitting
a permit application, which would have required expensive monitoring provisions,
as well as stricter requirements on disposal that would have halted the
use of unlined pits, LANL withdrew its "Part A" application
for Area G, ending interim status for that site.
The loss of interim status normally should have triggered RCRA
closure requirements, including public hearings on closure, but LANL had
been allowed to operate without an approved closure plan for Area G, and
so there was no plan to implement. Right
up to the present day, no serious closure plan for Area G has ever been
submitted, none has been approved, none has been implemented, and no public
hearings on the future of this site have ever been held.
Without an approved permit or even interim status, LANL was required
to close the site by an early date certain, following a process set forth
in federal regulations. Even starting
from scratch, without a closure plan, all closure activities were to be
completed and certified within 420 days (from 5/1/85); if a closure plan
were in place, closure was to be complete within 270 days after the last
truckload of hazardous waste was received at the site.
Under RCRA, hazardous waste disposal sites must either be fully
permitted for operation under legally-binding, agreed-upon guidelines
that protect public health, workers, and the environment, or else they
must be formally closed. A central
thrust of RCRA was, and remains, to make sure that there is no third option.
Any approved closure plan for Area G must by law include a number
of protections for citizens and the environment, including commitments
to long-term monitoring, financial assurance, creation of an accurate
waste inventory, and careful selection of closure options. Such closure options range from long-term containment
in place to removal of some or all of the waste.
Although LANL claimed in 1985 to have ceased disposal of chemical
waste at Area G, later investigation by a LANL contractor, and still later
enforcement action by NMED, revealed that chemical wastes were at times
disposed at Area G well into the 1990s - if indeed sporadic, inadvertent,
hazardous waste disposal has ever fully stopped. [Footnote 5: IT Corporation for LANL,
1992, "Operable Unit 1148 Data Report." This document attempts to inventory wastes disposed
at Areas J, H, L, and G by disposal pit and time period.]
Disposal of nuclear waste at Area G continues today, with no plan
to stop and no external regulation. Letter from Organizations to Secretary
Maggiore, December 15, 2001 Attachment 3: Text
of Letter from the 2001 "Can-Paign"
to Close Area G Dear Governor Johnson:
Los Alamos National Laboratory continues to dispose of large quantities
of radioactive waste in shallow pits and shafts in its "Area G"
landfill near White Rock, NM. I
respectfully request that you, through the New Mexico Environment Department
(NMED), close Area G to further disposal of nuclear waste. I request that NMED hold formal public hearings
on the required closure plan and subsequent cleanup and stabilization
measures both for Area G, and for all other nuclear and chemical waste
disposal sites in Los Alamos. If
I am a New Mexico resident, put me on the mailing list for these hearings
and all other opportunities for public comment on disposal and cleanup
at Los Alamos. If I am a visitor to New Mexico, please note
that I too care about the environment and people of this beautiful state. Don't waste New Mexico's future!
Sincerely,
[signed]
[letter and attachments end here]
Signatories of January 15, 2002 letter:
Albuquerque
San Jose Community Awareness Council, Inc. P.O.
Box 12297 Albuquerque,
NM 87195‑2297 Dorelen
F. Bunting, Coordinator Albuquerque
Peace & Justice Center 144
Harvard SE Albuquerque,
NM 87106 Brian
Shields, Executive Director Amigos
Bravos P.O.
Box 238 Taos,
NM 87571
Michael
J. Robinson Center
for Biological Diversity New
Mexico Office P.O.
Box 53166 Pinos Altos,
NM 88053 Sue
Dayton, Director/Coordinator Citizen
Action of Albuquerque P.O.
Box 1133 Sandia Park,
NM 87047‑1133 Deborah
Reade, Research Director Citizens
for Alternatives to Radioactive Dumping 144
Harvard SE Albuquerque,
NM 87106 Joni
Arends Waste
Programs Director
Concerned
Citizens for Nuclear Safety 107
Cienega Street Santa
Fe, NM 87501 Hilario
Romero, President El Rio
Arriba Environmental Health Association P.O.
Box 1699 Santa
Cruz, NM 87567 Eulynda
Toledo Benalli (from the Dine' Nation), President First
Nations North and South 609
Candelaria NW Albuquerque,
NM 87107 John
Horning, Conservation Director Forest
Guardians 312
Montezuma Avenue, Suite A Santa
Fe, NM 87501 Harry
Brown, Executive Director Gila
Resources Information Project 306
North Cooper Street Silver
City, NM Melissa
McDonald, Co‑Chair Xubi Wilson,
Co Chair Green
Party of NM P.O.
Box 22485 Santa
Fe, NM 87502 Greg
Mello, Director Los
Alamos Study Group 212
E. Marcy, Suite 10 Santa
Fe, NM 87501 Peter
Neils, Director Native
Forests Network 3136‑3
Glenwood Drive, NW Albuquerque,
NM 87107 Geoffrey
H. Fettus, Attorney Natural
Resources Defense Council 1200
New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 400 Washington,
D.C. 20025 Kurt
Ulrich Nizhoni
School for Global Consciousness HC 75
Box 72 Galisteo,
NM 87540 Helga
Schimkat, Executive Director New
Mexico Conservation Voters Alliance P.O.
Box 40497 Albuquerque,
NM 87195 Coila
Ash, Director, Executive Director New
Mexico Toxics Coalition 325
E. Coronado Road #2 Santa
Fe, New Mexico 87505 Jay
Coghlan, Director Nuclear
Watch of New Mexico 551
W. Cordova Road, #808 Santa
Fe, NM 87501 Marsha
Mason, President Resting
in the River 528
Don Gaspar Santa
Fe, NM 87505-2626 David
Bacon, President Southwest
Energy Institute 54 San
Marcos Road West Santa
Fe, NM 87508 Michael
Guerrero, Executive Director Southwest
Organizing Project 211
10th SW Albuquerque,
NM Don
Hancock Nuclear
Waste Program Coordinator Southwest
Research & Information Center P.O.
Box 4524 Albuquerque,
NM 87106 Melinda
Smith, Director 1000
Friends of New Mexico 1001
Marquette NW Albuquerque,
NM 87102 Jorge
Garcia, Strategy & Planning Director Tonantzin
Land Institute P.O.
Box 7889 Albuquerque,
NM 87194 Jaime
Chavez Regional
Coordinator Water
Information Network P.O.
Box 4524 Albuquerque,
NM 87106 Sam
Hitt, Founder Wild
Watershed P.O.
Box 1943 Santa
Fe, NM 87504 |
|||
|
|||
|