Regulator won't reopen LANL cleanup deal
By ROGER SNODGRASS, Los Alamos Monitor EditorA townhall meeting with officials of the New Mexico Environment Department returned repeatedly to the subject of a landmark Consent Order and the possibility that Los Alamos National Laboratory may fail to meet its cleanup obligations.
Several dozen people turned out for the parley between the two camps and the public, including political leaders and a representative showing of professionals engaged in environmental issues.
“I don’t think we quite have you guys outnumbered, so that’s a good sign,” said Jon Goldstein, the department’s deputy secretary, as he surveyed the audience in Fuller Lodge Tuesday night.
Secretary Ron Curry opened the meeting by introducing his staff and recalling his personal relationship with the laboratory that goes back to when his father worked on the Manhattan Project.
The general topic of the meeting was the range of work the department does in Los Alamos.
A primary responsibility involves supervising the comprehensive environmental cleanup program under the terms of a court settlement known as the Consent Order. But the much broader responsibilities include regulating laboratory operations and how much and what kind of hazardous waste is generated, as well as such tasks as air and environmental monitoring, and inspecting food services in the cafeteria.
The germ of the meeting, however, had to do with “the money.”
A persistent budgetary concern was confirmed earlier in the month. A Department of Energy report revealed that milestones for finishing the environmental cleanup by 2015 might not be met because of funding shortfalls that have been apparent since the Consent Order was signed in 2005.
“We don’t buy that they don’t have the money,” said Hazardous Waste Bureau Chief James Bearzi, who heads the cleanup process for the department.
“Lack of funding is not an excuse,” Curry said, emphasizing the department’s refusal to renegotiate the order.
He appreciated the fact that the laboratory had requested the funding, but noted that the lab is getting less than what it asked for this year and next. He insisted that there would be no compromise and that penalties would be the consequence of default.
A question from the audience asked the following: If the cleanup process were fully funded, could more of it go into actual cleanup rather than into the characterization process in order to accomplish the job sooner?
“If you show us the money, our hearing becomes better,” Curry said, adding that full funding was not yet forthcoming.
A more pointed manifestation of the argument was raised by another question from the audience about a disagreement between the department and the Northern New Mexico Citizens Advisory Board (NNMCAB) relating to a letter written last month by board chair J.D. Campbell to the managers of the Los Alamos Site Office.
Because of the letter, Curry had said, NMED declined to participate in a forum arranged by the advisory board April 16.
In a recent e-mail to the Monitor, Campbell said the letter did not recommend renegotiating the Consent Order.
“We recommended that NMED, DOE and LANL work together to set near-term priorities and schedules within the Consent Order to obtain the data … necessary to make future decisions,” Campbell wrote.
Fran Berting, a Los Alamos County Councilor and also vice chair of the citizens advisory board, told Curry that the letter was not intended to suggest renegotiations, but rather to have a short term reorganization of the priorities.
“Heaven forbid – we don’t want to renegotiate the whole Consent Order; that would be a slippery slope,” she said.
“This was and is a controversy,” Curry said. “I’m hoping some of the noise will go down.”
Curry and Campbell have agreed to meet in the near future to discuss the matter.
The public forum won’t be the last the community hears of NMED. The question of the laboratory’s hazardous waste permit and water issues related to Santa Fe will be coming up for public discussion and possible hearings.
In addition, the department plans a series of four “listening” sessions in the region to respond to questions and answer concerns about LANL’s impact on the environment.
31 comments:
LANS let off the hook for poor performance? Shocker - Mikey and friends probably get another bonus for thie ...
There would be a lot more money for environmental cleanup if $79 million in cash wasn't being shipped off to Bechtel HQ each year.
"“Lack of funding is not an excuse,” Curry said"
Lack of funding is not an excuse, it is a reason, and the best and only reason Curry is going to get. Money doesn't come from magic, and it is against federal law for LANL to use federal money other than for it's intended (legislated) purpose. Curry can levy fines and hold his breath until he is blue, but it is still not going to happen until congress allocates it. Simple truth. End of story. Curry needs to wake up to the fact that his grandstanding brinksmanship is hurting, not helping, New Mexico. He is part of the problem, and refuses to be part of the solution. His supposed "supporters" in Santa Fe will soon realize this and dump him, if they are smart.
Fence to fence, baby. Not getting it done hurts you and New Mexico. Curry isn't the problem.
Hi 9:25 - could you cite the law or regulation please?
Did DOE/The Bush Administration request adequate funding?
4/30/08 9:58 PM:
Congressional appropriations bills ARE federal law.
The meeting was far more interesting than this article reveals.
If DOE does not meet the terms of its RCRA operating permit, including cleanup, NMED should pull the permit.
"If DOE does not meet the terms of its RCRA operating permit, including cleanup, NMED should pull the permit."
Absolutley. It is time that DOE faces up to its obligations. DOE signed off on the agreement. I don't believe that DOE is trying to fund the cleanup. They are not requesting the money necessary for it, thus underfunding LANL while paying Bechtel large amounts of money and while LANL pays NM GRT revenues.
LANL can't change how it spends money so it will continue to be fined and in the headlines. Someone should be smart enough to make DOE look so bad that it will finally get the picture that privatization is not cost effective.
12:06 pm: "If DOE does not meet the terms of its RCRA operating permit, including cleanup, NMED should pull the permit."
Indeed. That would be an interesting confrontation. DOE would refuse to shut LANL down, NMED would sue in federal court, DOE would claim (rightly) that it lacks the funding to comply and has no legal way of re-programming money congress has allocated to other programs. Some federal judge would find himself in a fight with congress. A Battle Royal between all three branches of government during a presidential election year. Not to mention all the subsidiary lawsuits filed by LANL emloyees, contractors, vendors, etc. Of course all this will never happen, but it sure would be fun to watch.
The confrontation might replace Pastor Wright as headline news!
Think of the precedence it would set if a federal judge ruled that Congress had to fund cleanup because DOE as an agent of the government signed the agreement! Congress has legislated to DOE the right to obligate funds which Congress has not provided. Thus Congress is in default!
I believe that an examination of the "clean-up" costs will show some very interesting salaries and overhead. This information will be slow in coming but I'll bet, anonomously of course, that money is being diverted.
"Clean Up" money, and how it's spent has always been hidden, or mis-spent. I know a few years ago much of the supposed 'clean up' money went to a certian Divison's massive overhead to help pay for folkes who were under funded. LANL will use the 'clean up' fund as a means to get more $$$< without doing any real clean up.
When "cleanup" money first started being budgeted, there were very strict DOE rules about how it could be used. For example, equipment purchased for cleanup, such as computers, could be used only for data analysis and planning for cleanup activities.
As the equipment and the team that supported the equipment and did the actual data input and analysis were moved from group level management to division level management, those rules were ignored once the people who knew the rules and were involved in the acquisition of the equipment were run out of LANL. The resources then became a division resource, not a program resource.
At that point there was no one to ensure that LANL operated responsibly and followed DOE rules. It's not surprising that there are all kinds of money problems at LANL because LANL has a hard time following rules.
If you check the DOE budget requests to Congress, most likely it is DOE underfunding requests that are causing the problems not Congressional cutting. NMED should hold DOE accountable.
Clean-up funding isn't used to do much actual clean-up work at LANL. Instead, it's used to pay for the huge managerial overhead costs and to fund endless rounds of never ending studies about cleanup that LANL may do at some future date. If the money was used to do actual clean-up work, then LANL would have to lay off many of their highly paid and completely useless managers. That will never happen.
Interesting, DOE approves the cleanup baseline, to which the program is executed and it must also be consistent with Lab-approved rates.
Since when does the "law" have anything to do with what LANL does? Never has before, so why start now?
6:38PM said "At that point there was no one to ensure that LANL operated responsibly and followed DOE rules."
You're right about that. Not even the DOE was there to ensure compliance with their own orders. Thanks to St. Pete of course.
And speaking of not following the rules: What's the latest with our little friend J Pat Trujillo? Has he returned to work?
"06:38pm said 'You're right about that. Not even the DOE was there to ensure compliance with their own orders. Thanks to St. Pete of course.'"
I disagree. There are many DOE rules that LANL is supposed to follow, and honest, responsible management would ensure that all rules are followed. DOE should not be expected to check up on every thing LANL did/does. Think of how much more DOE would cost if it operated every lab under "trust but verify".
When management was told the rules about the equipment, it was obvious that they were angry at the messenger. So the typical LANL reponse was to kill the messenger. There are many ways to accomplish that, but it does not matter what method was used. The messenger left for greener pastures, and management got what they wanted. Who knows what else they did, but I imagine none of their decisions speeded up the cleanup process.
In fact, I believe nothing monumental has happened since the cleanup of TA-21.
TA-21 clean-up, by what standards? What about the MDAs?
LANL has never operated in a responsible manner environmentally - only minimal compliance or less. One of the early memos in the CEARP archives states that the citizens of NM will never forgive the Lab for what it has done - TA-45 liquid waste discharges are included in the memo. What most don't tell you is that most of the inventory of radioactive contaminants once in the canyons is already in the Rio Grande.
8:12 pm: "LANL has never operated in a responsible manner environmentally - only minimal compliance or less."
Right - that's why NMED has certified cleanup on hundreds of sites in the last several years. No one funds, or expects anything "beyond" compliance. Get a clue. I guess your definiton of "responsible" is "remove every last atom of any substance that was not there in 1942." Like world-wide fallout pollution, which is in your backyard and polluting your very garden soil. Gasp!! Also radon, which is coming out of the soil beneath your home! Sue someone (maybe God?)! Or maybe the pharmaceutical waste polluting your groundwater from your neighbors flushing their old prescriptions! Which do you think will kill you first? Hint: Look at your neighbors.
Poster 11:31 PM show an attitude all too common at LANL. When attacked about serious environmental issues, engage in hyperbole and blame everyone else but LANL. This tactic does nothing to help the lab and is part of the reason that the public views LANL with such disdain.
Our entire 'culture' regarding clean-up must change. Unless we want this measa and the valley to turn into another Rocky Flats. What the hell is wrong with cleaning up our own mess? Yes much of the damage has been done, but lets try to focus on being a better landlord/responsible than what we have been.
LANL/DOE has not avoided compliance? Where were you when the Lab intentionally injected discharges to underground injection points to avoid NPDES, which was illegal and ultimately stoped due to regulatory enforcement?
LANL/DOE has cleaned-up the least costly sites under which NMED has enforcement authority because of the HSWA module and subsequent enforcement actions under RCRA. LANL under Baca/Jorg J, the deceived DOE by manipulating the Lab-approved baseline to indicate that cleanup would be completed by 2008 and that costs would be reduced substantially - what a joke. And, they both rode off into the NM sunset with pockets full of "gold."
10:01 AM: " Poster 11:31 PM show an attitude all too common at LANL."
11:31 here. Sorry to burst your bubble, but I am not "at LANL" and am not associated with LANL. I just recognize a reason-free lynch mob when I see one.
Post a Comment