HELENA, Mont. - Lawmakers could sideline Montana's radioactive waste disposal rules from oil and gas industries next week, despite public opposition.

The Legislative Environmental Quality Council voted to delay Department of Environmental Quality limits last month, and could make that decision final at its May 27 meeting. The rules were aimed at limiting radioactive waste materials at landfills.

Seth Newton is a rancher in Glendive, and a spokesman for and member of the Northern Plains Resource Council. He lives near the only waste site permitted for radioactive material in Montana so far.

"We just want to know what's going on and know it's done right, and the contents that's being put in there will stay in there," says Newton. "They're being put there to be managed safely, indefinitely."

Debate over the waste limit has gone on for years. State Sen. Mike Lang, R-Malta, called the Environmental Quality Council meeting in April when he said the council hadn't been able to scrutinize the latest proposal.

In the initial 2017 draft, the state proposed a limit of 50 picocuries of radiation per gram, the same limit as North Dakota and other oil-producing states. In 2019, DEQ proposed quadrupling the limit to 200 picocuries, sparking public outrage.

Early this year, the agency reverted to its original proposal. Newton says the landfill near his ranch is proof that states will dump their waste in Montana without rules in place.

"It needs to be adhered to, or we're just going to be known as the radioactive destination," says Newton. "If the limit's set at 200, that's going to be what you get in the dump."

Oaks Disposal has accepted 450,000 tons of waste at the site - and nearly three-quarters is from North Dakota, according to Northern Plains.

Newtown says limits also are important for Montana's future.

"Just trying to make the best of it and leave a legacy that future generations can actually live with," says Newton.

Northern Plains is spearheading a letter-writing campaign to Environmental Quality Council members ahead of the Wednesday meeting.

Offshore wind in New York and New Jersey is becoming a large contributor to job growth.

New York's offshore wind investments are slated to create between 18,000 and 23,000 jobs, according to a state estimate.

Meanwhile, the New Jersey Economic Development Authority reported offshore wind jobs will hit their peak in 2030 at 20,000, with steady growth in the next decade.

More than 120 elected officials in New Jersey have signed a letter calling for further growth in the sector.

Caren Fitzpatrick, an Atlantic County commissioner, believes southern New Jersey can become a hub to provide offshore wind development for the East Coast.

"Our manufacturing area over in Salem County, in the southwestern part of the state, is perfectly situated to create and build the turbines, the monopolies, the bases, and they can just ship them down the Delaware River," Fitzpatrick pointed out.

Fitzpatrick noted misinformation about the wind farms endangers their futures. Some of the opposition surrounds the turbines obstructing Atlantic City's views, and hazards to bird species. But the Ocean Wind Offshore Wind Farm will be 15 miles offshore, about five times farther than the human eye can see, and eight miles farther than birds migrate.

Outside of jobs, some see the state's shift to renewables as a health benefit. A 2022 report showed parts of Burlington County are more at risk for different diseases from toxic air particulate matter than others.

Balvir Singh, a Burlington County commissioner, feels it's time for New Jersey to shift to renewables.

"The bottom line is this: Clean energy is needed to protect our residents from the worst impacts of climate change," Singh asserted. "We must slow or reverse dependence on fossil fuels, and must continue to move forward with our transition to alternative sources such as solar power and wind farms."

Singh added state residents are already seeing the effects of climate change. New Jersey's 2022 State of the Climate report showed the state, along with much of the northeastern U.S. is facing increased summer temperatures, but rainfall remains unchanged, leading to brief drought conditions increasing.

In Yellowstone National Park, 30,000 acres are protected from mining by Congressional order, but there is a sliver left unprotected, and a Montana nonprofit is trying to change it.

The Bozeman-based Greater Yellowstone Coalition wants to close what it sees as a dangerous loophole, which could still allow mining to happen on the edge of the world's first national park.

The group is trying to raise $6.25 million to buy the land and mineral rights on private property in what is known as the Yellowstone gateway along the northern edge of the park, to prevent Crevice Mining Group from prospecting for gold.

Scott Christensen, executive director of the Greater Yellowstone Coalition, said the deal will "extinguish the last real and significant mining threat on the border of Yellowstone National Park forever."

"Purchasing the mineral rights, the mining leases, the claims that they've staked, the mining permit they have, all of the proprietary plans and exploration information that they have," Christensen outlined. "Allowing them to walk away and avoid a mine being built on the boundary of Yellowstone."

Christensen pointed out the coalition has until Oct. 1 to raise the remaining $2.35 million to buy the mining rights, or Crevice will move forward with its plans.

In addition to concerns over mining, Crevice Mountain, where the mine is being proposed, is also prime grizzly bear habitat and home to a migration corridor for elk, mule deer and bighorn sheep.

Christensen emphasized wildlife are another reason for concern about a potential mine.

"I just have to believe there are a lot of people out there in our country and really in the world who share the same passion that we do for Yellowstone National Park and this amazing greater Yellowstone ecosystem," Christensen contended.

The coalition website states a mine on Crevice Mountain would permanently alter vital wildlife habitat north of Yellowstone and could severely impact the character, water quality and aesthetic value of much of the park itself.


get more stories like this via email

The federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulates carbon dioxide pipelines, and is holding a two-day conference in Des Moines to take public input and discuss issues surrounding the pipelines.

Opponents believe they threaten air and water quality as well as the people who live near them. Ethanol producers say removing carbon dioxide via pipelines and burying it deep in the ground through a process known as carbon capture and sequestration is an effective way to address safety and environmental concerns.

Ava Auen-Ryan, director of farming and environment for the group Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement, said environmentalists want a federal moratorium on the pipelines until they can be studied more thoroughly, and will make it clear to federal regulators at the conference.

"I think we hope to build pressure on the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration to do their job well," Auen-Ryan explained. "Also to build pressure on state and federal entities to enact a moratorium on CO2 pipelines."

The agenda showed the committee will discuss public awareness, emergency response and effective communication with emergency first responders and with the public during the conference, which takes place today and tomorrow.

Beyond the potential long-term environmental impacts and health implications, Auen-Ryan also cautioned about the immediate human threats posed in the event a pipeline should rupture, and pointed to a break in Mississippi three years ago, sickening 45 people.

Ryan emphasized the very nature of carbon dioxide, which displaces oxygen in the environment, makes it extremely dangerous in an emergency.

"Gas-combustion vehicles; they can't work," Auen-Ryan pointed out. "They need oxygen to work, so that means that emergency response folks cannot get into those communities and people cannot leave the communities via car. And we also know that rural communities in Iowa are not equipped to respond to something like that. "

The agency will also discuss safety expectations for pipeline operators as well as the general state of pipeline infrastructure. There are currently three companies planning to build carbon dioxide pipelines in Iowa.