Lapsed federal funds threaten monitoring at NM's national labs
Rick Shean, who leads the Environmental Protection Division for the New Mexico Environment Department, pictured above testifying before the Radiation and Hazardous Waste interim committee on Aug. 21, 2023. (Danielle Prokop / Source New Mexico)
According to New Mexico officials, for the last three years, the National Nuclear Security Administration has failed to pay its share toward monitoring the environment around federal installations in the state.
Unless the federal government makes up that funding, Source has learned, independent monitoring of air, water and ecology around Los Alamos and Sandia National Labs could stop at the end of the month.
'My concern is that the state of New Mexico and our citizens will not have an independent review of the impacts the labs are having,' New Mexico Environment Department Resource Protection Division Director Rick Shean told Source NM. 'Without this funding, going forward we're not going to be able to sample and monitor the environment for ourselves in order to ensure that the data that they're collecting is true.'
NMED has operated water, air and environmental monitoring projects at LANL and Sandia since 1990, and later included the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant near Carlsbad.
'We're verifying they're not impacting the environment and public health around their facilities,' Shean said. The bureau does not regulate the sites but does release data to the public on its findings.
The work is funded by a U.S. Department of Energy grant, which was developed as part of an agreement between the state and federal government.
Previously, one office in the Department of Energy paid for the grant funding the oversight bureau at NMED. In recent reshuffling at the federal level, the National Nuclear Security Administration was assigned to foot part of the bill. Currently, NMED's Department of Energy Oversight Bureau has 16 employees and a budget of $4.3 million. The NNSA has failed to pay its share for the past three years, Shean said. For this year, that amounts to a $750,000 gap, approximately 17% of the budget for the state oversight program.
Without the funding, NMED would have to stop the current monitoring work at the national laboratories on May 30, Shean said. WIPP monitoring would still continue.
Compounding the missing funding, Shean says new federal projects are putting more strain on existing employees. For instance, Shean noted LANL's new plan to start venting pent up barrels of tritium, a radioactive isotope of hydrogen, possibly in June, which would increase the monitoring workload for the oversight bureau.
Shean said he received assurances on May 9 after a meeting with NNSA officials, that federal funds would be available by May 16.
In an emailed statement, the NNSA said it issued a partial payment to NMED, but did not disclose the amount.
'NNSA will continue to incrementally fund its portion of the funds for the remainder of FY 2025,' the statement said. The statement concluded by saying the agency would pay NMED by the close of the fiscal year. It's unclear if that indicates the federal fiscal year (in September) or New Mexico's fiscal year, which ends in June.
NMED spokesperson Drew Goretzka confirmed to Source NM that NNSA sent a partial payment to the agency but said the NNSA statement to Source does not reflect previous commitments the federal government made. Source has a pending request for more specifics on the amount of the payment that was made.
'That timeline does not line up with what they presented to us in meetings in which they are going to deliver the funds by this Friday, May 16,' Goretzka said in a phone call. 'We're still under the impression they'll deliver the funds by then.'
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
10-06-2025
- Yahoo
Nuclear watchdogs, scientists question need for SC plutonium plant amid environmental study
The Savannah River Site has a total of 51 waste tanks. Eight of those tanks have been operationally closed. (From Savannah River Site fact sheet, May 2022, U.S. Department of Energy) South Carolina's federal nuclear site is part of a plan to replace the plutonium cores of bombs in the country's nuclear arsenal. But now the federal government is taking a closer look at the environmental impacts of such a venture — or whether it's even necessary. A $25 billion factory planned for the Savannah River Nuclear Site in western South Carolina would mean new investment and lots of new jobs for the area — an estimated 1,000 new positions over the next several years. But anti-nuclear and environmental groups sued in 2021 saying the U.S. Department of Energy, the federal agency that manages the country's nuclear stockpile, didn't follow national environmental law in developing its plans and failed to account for disposal of excess radioactive material. In a settlement in January, the government agreed to redo the necessary study. The public has until July 14 to weigh in on the scope and factors they think the National Nuclear Security Administration, the Energy Department's nuclear arm, should consider in its review. 'A rushed program will likely increase the risks to the workers and frontline communities who bear still unaddressed burdens from the production of nuclear weapons during the Cold War,' Dylan Spaulding, senior scientist for the Union of Concerned Scientists, wrote in a recent report. The Department of Energy and the National Nuclear Security Administration did not respond to emails sent by the SC Daily Gazette. 3 SC colleges could split $120M to educate students for jobs at nuclear laboratory Plutonium decays over centuries. The recycling of spheres of plutonium, called pits, used in nuclear weapons has become a priority over the past couple decades as the country's nuclear stockpile has aged. In response, scientists at Savannah River, as well as those at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, have been charged with salvaging usable plutonium from old pits and recycling it into new ones. Savannah River was expected to make 50 pits per year by 2030, though that timeline was considered ambitious to begin with. It likely will be further delayed by the legal settlement, which halted some of the proposed construction work and equipment installation. The 310-square-mile complex, known to locals as the 'bomb plant,' produced weapons-grade plutonium and tritium for the U.S. nuclear arsenal from the 1950s through the end of the Cold War and nuclear arms race between the United States and Russia. All radioactive production at the site that covers parts of Barnwell, Aiken, and Allendale counties ceased in 1992, when its mission shifted to cleanup and research. Federal scientists have said they have no way of knowing how long the nuclear weapons pits will remain usable. But the Union of Concerned Scientists argues new pits aren't necessary to maintain the existing U.S. nuclear fleet. 'The claim that we need new pits just to maintain a safe and reliable arsenal just doesn't hold water,' Spaulding wrote. 'The reality is NNSA has thousands of existing plutonium pits in reserve and should investigate options for re-use before one more pit is produced.' Tom Clements, director of Savannah River Site Watch, is a longtime nuclear watchdog whose organization helped bring the federal lawsuit against the pit program. He also pointed to statements in the NNSA's own study of pit aging, which says plutonium pits have reliable lifetimes of at least 100 years. The average age of the country's current pits is now around 42 years. 'While public rationales for the program often emphasize a need to replace aging pits, the national laboratories have offered no evidence that the nation's existing pits are anywhere near the end of their service lives,' Spaulding wrote. 'Moreover, the national laboratories can use existing capabilities to monitor any potential for aging effects without reviving pit production.' Both Clements and the Union of Concerned Scientists are calling for a new independent assessment of pit lifetimes, an inventory of existing pits, as well as an assessment of all potential pit recycling and waste disposal sites, beyond those just considering Savannah River and Los Alamos. Defense package includes $2.7B for SRS in 2024 South Carolina has long wrestled with tons of weapons-grade plutonium that have accumulated at Savannah River, suing in 2016 over the federal government's inability to meet deadlines for its promised removal. Much of the surplus plutonium from sites across the country was brought to South Carolina in 2002 and stored inside the reactor that once produced the radioactive metal. It was supposed to be turned into fuel for commercial nuclear reactors — mixed-oxide fuel, or MOX — as part of a nonproliferation agreement with Russia in 2000. But with the plant to convert the plutonium years behind schedule and billions over budget, the Obama administration tried repeatedly to scrap it. However, South Carolina's delegation balked, and Attorney General Alan Wilson sued, keeping the project going. The fatal blow came from the Trump administration, which continued with his predecessor's plans, and another effort by South Carolina officials to revive the project failed. The project was officially terminated in 2018. That left 11.5 metric tons of plutonium underground at SRS, enough to build the bomb dropped on Nagasaki nearly 2,000 times over, The Post and Courier reported. A $600 million settlement with the state in fall 2020 gave the U.S. Department of Energy an additional 15 years, until 2037, to get rid of all the plutonium it shipped to SRS. Even if doesn't, South Carolina can't sue again until 2042, as per the settlement's terms. The proposed pit production factory is meant to be developed at the site of that failed fuels plant. The state already has invested heavily to prepare for the future of both the Savannah River Site and its associated national laboratory. Last year, the Legislature allocated $60 million in the budget to fund faculty, student scholarships, lab upgrades and a control room simulator at the University of South Carolina, Clemson University and South Carolina State University, as well as a workforce center at USC's four-year campus in Aiken.
New York Times
03-06-2025
- New York Times
Sharp Hike in Nuclear Arms Budget Sought as Science Funding Is Slashed
The White House is asking Congress for a major jump in the nation's budget for designing, making, maintaining and reconditioning its nuclear arms. According to a budget justification sent in recent days to Congress, the Trump administration wants the annual spending on the weapon activities of the National Nuclear Security Administration to increase from $19 billion this year to roughly $30 billion in the 2026 fiscal year, a rise of 58 percent. The document calls the hike 'a historic investment' in the nuclear enterprise. Currently, the complex of facilities employs 65,500 people at eight main sites from coast to coast. The justification document was sent to Congress by the Energy Department, which oversees the semiautonomous nuclear security agency. The White House request comes as the Trump administration seeks to slash budgets in many other agencies that specialize in scientific research, including NASA, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Science Foundation. Critics have accused the administration of cutting back research at the forefront of human knowledge, and the proposed nuclear investment seems likely to intensify those objections. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Yahoo
03-06-2025
- Yahoo
As temperatures rise, New Mexico heat-rule champions push back against delay
Conservation Voters New Mexico Climate and Energy Advocate Justin Garoutte urged the New Mexico Environment Department to 'hold strong' on worker protections against heat, both indoors and outside, as the the department annouced a delay and revision of its proposed heat rule later this year. (Danielle Prokop / Source NM) Environmental and labor advocates expressed concerns during a news conference Monday about the New Mexico environment department's decision to extend the timeline for a proposed rule to protect workers from heat-related illness and injury. The delay comes as forecasts predict another warmer-than-average summer. NMED cited rising temperatures and increased heat-related injuries and deaths when it announced the proposed rule earlier this year. Under the original timeline, the rule could have taken effect as early as July. Its provisions include: required rest periods during hot temperatures; access to adequate shade, air-conditioning and water; and employer tracking of heat-related injuries. Amid rising temperatures, NM officials propose workplace protections NMED's revised schedule pushes hearings into the fall and 'leaves another summer where our workers are vulnerable to extreme heat in New Mexico,' Conservation Voters New Mexico Climate and Energy Advocate Justin Garoutte said. A Friday state news release said the delay 'will allow for continued outreach and stakeholder engagement throughout the summer and fall, ensuring broader participation and input in the rulemaking process.' More than 600 public comments have already been submitted on the proposed rule, according to Source NM's review. These include opposition from industry groups representing livestock, landscapers, oil and gas, restaurants, county governments and utilities. The New Mexico Chamber of Commerce, for instance, asked for clarifications on how the rule would be applied across several industries and wrote: 'We urge regulators to reject this rule as there is not sufficient data to justify any of these rules. Good employers protect their employees, but mandating all industries to follow one blanket rule will not work.' Eleven New Mexico Democratic senators, however, issued a letter supporting the new standards and noted that 'public comment opposed to the rule include a great deal of unscientific claims, compounded with echoes of the federal administration's ideological bent to oppose all government action.' During Monday's news conference, Garoutte said advocates for the rule are 'committed to getting through a rule that's as strong as possible' and 'we are here today to push back on industry groups who are claiming it's too hard, too fast and too burdensome.' In the meantime, 'we hope that our employers will use this time to put in place the commonsense protections detailed so well in the proposed rule,' he said. 'Every day that passes without this rule is another day that people across our state are exposed to dangerous and sometimes deadly working conditions.' Six other states — Maryland, California, Nevada, Minnesota, Oregon and Washington — have adopted statewide regulations to reduce heat stress in the workplace. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
