After being rejected by Texas and Utah, the federal government has now picked New Mexico to house the nation's spent nuclear fuel, but the governor said the state will not be a "dumping ground."

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) announced last week it intends to issue a license to Holtec International, to locate a toxic waste storage facility in Lea County. Holtec has proposed to transport high-level nuclear waste from the East Coast across the country via rail lines to a facility slated for the state's southeast corner.

Don Hancock, nuclear waste program director at the Southwest Research and Information Center, objected to the decision.

"This is a very bad idea," Hancock asserted. "These kinds of waste facilities proposed in Texas and New Mexico and previously Utah, and historically it has been bipartisan Republican and Democratic opposition."

Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham accused the NRC of putting profit over public interest. A bill to prohibit such a facility was introduced in the New Mexico Legislature last year, but failed to move forward. A similar bill passed in Texas. In a statement, Grisham said new legislation would have her full support.

Holtec said the New Mexico operation for nuclear waste would be temporary, but nonetheless seeks a 40-year license with the opportunity for renewal. New Mexico does not have a nuclear power plant within its borders, and Hancock argued the state should not have to solve the nation's nuclear waste problem.

"None of this waste we're talking about is in New Mexico," Hancock emphasized. "If it actually were a good thing, if it were safe, Holtec or anybody else wouldn't be thinking about trying to find someplace else."

Used nuclear fuel is currently housed at more than 75 U.S. locations. Holtec argued consolidation would better secure the radioactive waste from threats. Multiple New Mexico groups including tribal leaders oppose the operations. The NRC's final environmental assessment stated it would have minimal impacts on land, oil and gas, livestock operations and public health.

A new agreement on plans for cleaning up nuclear waste at the Hanford site in Washington state is receiving pushback from environmental groups.

Public comment was originally scheduled to close at the beginning of August but has been extended to Sept. 1 for the Tri-Party Agreement between the U-S Energy Department, Environmental Protection Agency and Washington Department of Ecology.

Simone Anter, staff attorney and Hanford program director for the nonprofit Columbia Riverkeeper, said the new agreement means changes to the cleanup efforts including how and where the Hanford nuclear waste is stored.

"If new proposals are coming out to ship either grouted or liquid nuclear waste across the region, communities deserve to know that and deserve to have a voice and deserve to be engaged," Anter contended.

The agreement for dealing with 177 underground storage tanks at Hanford took four years of closed door negotiations. Columbia Riverkeeper and other environmental groups worry the new agreement opens the door for a storage method other than vitrification, which is used to turn high-level waste into glass.

Anter noted tribal nations in the region were not consulted about the proposal. She stressed even if they could not be part of the agreement, the agencies should have been considered before it was presented to the public.

"Tribal nations are not members of the public. They are government entities and should have been treated as such," Anter pointed out.

Anter added members of the public can play a big role in how the 56 million gallons of nuclear waste at Hanford are handled.

"It's really important that all these cleanup decisions put human health, the Columbia River and the environment first," Anter asserted. "I think public comments play an enormous role in reminding the TPA agencies about this."

Some organizations are renewing calls to address radioactive contamination in U.S. food and drinking water.

The issue has gained prevalence in the past year, since Japan has started releasing treated and diluted radioactive wastewater into the Pacific Ocean from the major nuclear accident in Fukushima in 2011.

James Gormley, president of the advocacy group Citizens for Health, said in a webinar some of the substances in the wastewater can make their way into fish and other foods, and it can have harmful effects on ecosystems and the public.

"The most important effect is the effect on people," Gormley emphasized. "Bioaccumulation in the oceans. Bioaccumulation in people and in their organs. Pathological effects, epidemiological effects."

Some Missourians are familiar with the effect of radioactive contamination. Several St. Louis neighborhoods saw elevated cancer levels in the mid-20th century, after atomic waste spilled and contaminated the area.

Multiple state lawmakers have supported compensating the communities exposed to radiation.

The Food and Drug Administration has said it's maintaining its radioactivity standards as Japan discharges wastewater and doesn't expect changes to food or water supplies.

Some scientists have said they would like to see tighter standards and enhanced testing.

Bob Richmond, research professor and director of the Kewalo Marine Laboratory at the University of Hawaii-Manoa, agrees. In the same webinar, he explained once a company dumps something into the ocean, it does not quickly dilute.

"The ocean is not a sterile aquarium, and once these radionuclides go into the ocean, they are taken up," Richmond explained. "They are tropically transferred throughout the food web, and they can be bioaccumulated and biomagnified in organisms."

The FDA said it has tested numerous Japanese products including seafood, tea and ginger and has not detected anything close to problematic. Still, it will be an ongoing issue, as discharges at Fukushima are scheduled to continue for the next 30 years.


get more stories like this via email

Environmental groups in Tennessee will soon learn more about the approval process behind a radioactive waste landfill which has been processing and storing highly enriched uranium for six decades.

The group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility sued the Environmental Protection Agency to gain access to documents related to the approval of the Y12 Uranium Processing Facility in Oak Ridge.

Jeff Ruch, Pacific director for the group, explained the landfill is being built despite objections from senior government officials. He said they used a Freedom of Information Act request to obtain the documents and the EPA has agreed to provide 400 documents a month, through September.

"The fact that EPA is not being candid about this indicates that they have something to hide," Ruch contended. "And they've already produced several hundred documents, almost none of which are substantive. We do a lot of FOIA litigation and for us, it's a kind of a safe form of whistleblowing."

Ruch pointed out one issue is the Clean Water Act protections for the streams running by the landfill and emptying into other bodies of water have been set aside. He added unacceptable levels of radiation in the water will affect the fish and wildlife. Critics of the uranium-enriching process say it poses safety and health risks to Tennesseans.

Tanvi Kardile, coordinator for the Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance, said her group continues to raise concerns to local communities and lawmakers about what it sees as the environmental hazards and public health risks tied to creating a landfill for toxic waste.

"Oak Ridge has pretty high cancer rates already, because of the Y12 weapons complex," Kardile asserted. "As an organization, we're worried about the increase of cancer rates because of a radioactive waste landfill."