Slashdot Mirror


New Mexico Levies $54M Against Energy Dept. For Violations At Nuclear Repository

mdsolar notes that New Mexico has asked the US Department of Energy to pay over $54 million in fines stemming from violations that led to the indefinite closure of the nation's only underground nuclear waste repository. The state Environment Department delivered a pair of compliance orders to Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, marking the state's largest penalty ever imposed on the agency. Together, the orders outline more than 30 state permit violations at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in southeastern New Mexico and at Los Alamos National Laboratory. The orders and the civil penalties that come with them are just the beginning of possible financial sanctions the Energy Department could face in New Mexico. The state says it's continuing to investigate and more fines are possible. The focus has been on a canister of waste from Los Alamos that ruptured in one of WIPP's storage rooms in February. More than 20 workers were contaminated and the facility was forced to close, putting in jeopardy efforts around the country to clean up tons of Cold War-era waste."

36 comments

  1. The real problem of nuclear is close ties to gov't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The people who manage nuclear projects tend to get the impression they are above and beyond government regulations and accountability, and then shit ensues with the corresponding PR fallout.

    Happened in the US, happened in Europe, happened in Japan, will happen in China, too.

    Too bad.

  2. how can New Mexico regulate a federal site? by Trepidity · · Score: 1

    Next maybe they'll fine the military over activities at White Sands Missile Range?

    1. Re:how can New Mexico regulate a federal site? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      You can fine or sue the Federal government all you want. As to whether they care, it's up to them.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  3. So much for ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

    ... Yucky Mountain.

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    1. Re:So much for ... by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 2

      Cold war era waste is in all kinds of difficult to manage forms. A system of tight regulation & oversight, including fines for violations, is the best way to deal with it. If there are no fines or violations occurring, then either oversight or regulation is too lax, or both.

    2. Re:So much for ... by ultranova · · Score: 1

      A system of tight regulation & oversight, including fines for violations, is the best way to deal with it.

      But if you let the market take care of it, you'll surely boost sales for bottled water, Fallout 3 style!

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  4. Re:new mexico by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Right after Mexico gives Mexico back to the Incas.

  5. non-enforcible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And "asks" is the key word, since unless Congress has explicitly agreed prior to give the state the right to fine it, then there is no way that they can enforce a fine against a federal agency.

  6. Sovereign Immunity/Federal Supremacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unless the state of New Mexico has a prior agreement with the Federal Gov't granting it the ability to levy fines against the DOE, then these "fines" are strictly for show, since they are unenforcible against the federal government under principles of soverign immunity. Furthermore, since they apparently occurred on a federal facility, they fall outside of the state's jurisdiction and are properly investigated/enforced by the federal EPA.

  7. Re:neo-cons stealing from the feds. by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

    It's all a bit of political posturing. The Feds can decide if they will allow Nevada to sue them (Federal Tort Claims Act). Thus, the Feds can essentially dictate whether or not they want to give Nevada some money. Everybody knows this. It's just a game.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  8. Re: new mexico by WindBourne · · Score: 2

    Why? It was never theirs. Any land ends up belonging to those with the greatest number of ppl. The area claimed by mexico was never theirs. It was owned by native Americans or indian tribes that had 5-10x as many ppl as Mexicans had here. Sadly, the genocide that the Mexicans started in America was continued by the other Europeans that had moved to america.

    But to claim that any of this belonged to new Spain or mexico is a joke.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  9. Re:neo-cons stealing from the feds. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The state of NM is currently under control of the Governor and legislators duly elected by the people who live there. They reflect the desires of the majority of the people who actually live there, or they will be replaced in due time. The fact that you need to resort to name calling says more about you than it does about the merits of the state's actions.

  10. Re:new mexico by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The end is an absolute idiot? What?

  11. Mostly Smallpox by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 3, Informative

    Way off topic, but European diseases such as Smallpox killed Incas. Quoting: "Even before the arrival of Pizarro, smallpox had already devastated the Inca Empire..." And: "... the viruses tore through the continent, killing an estimated 90% of Native Americans."

    1. Re: Mostly Smallpox by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Any reason why you quoted something that was NOT in that link? In POF, the link kindof refutes what you said by stating that it killed UP TO 95%, while you unequivocally state that they were killed. In addition, that was in 1400, 3-400 years before mexico would form and then start trying to attack north american Indians.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  12. Re:neo-cons stealing from the feds. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's all a bit of political posturing. The Feds can decide if they will allow Nevada to sue them (Federal Tort Claims Act). Thus, the Feds can essentially dictate whether or not they want to give Nevada some money. Everybody knows this. It's just a game.

    When did Nevada come into the picture?

  13. Re:The real problem of nuclear is close ties to go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The people who manage nuclear projects tend to get the impression they are above and beyond government regulations and accountability, and then shit ensues with the corresponding PR fallout.

    Happened in the US, happened in Europe, happened in Japan, has happened in China, too.

    Too bad.

    FTFY

  14. Nuclear disaster area in the United States by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There is a nuclear disaster area in the United States, the Hanford nuclear site. I've heard about the some of the problems over many years from a manager of one of the departments of the U.S. Department of Energy, and the Wikipedia article mentions some of the problems. Here is one quote:

    "Citing the 2014 Hanford Lifecycle Scope Schedule and Cost report, the 2014 estimated cost of the remaining Hanford clean up is $113.6 billion..." [my emphasis] Retrieved Dec. 3, 2014.

    Here is another quote from the Hanford Wikipedia article: "From 1944 to 1971, pump systems drew cooling water from the river and, after treating this water for use by the reactors, returned it to the river. Before being released back into the river, the used water was held in large tanks known as retention basin for up to six hours. Longer-lived isotopes were not affected by this retention, and several terabecquerels entered the river every day. These releases were kept secret by the federal government."

    What is called cleaning Hanford has now taken more than 50 years. The Wikipedia article is not, at present, completely clear about that fact, apparently because, as the quote above says, the U.S. government managed the information so that it did not get into the news, although much of the information was not actually a secret, but was known to people living in the area.

    1. Re:Nuclear disaster area in the United States by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      The only thing I want to point out about Hanford is that it was a nuclear weapons facility, not a nuclear power one.

      Sadly, this shows that when it comes to weapons, the USA wasn't that much better than the USSR in keeping it's activities clean.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    2. Re:Nuclear disaster area in the United States by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the USA wasn't that much better than the USSR

      Actually we were. Mayak, the Soviet equivalent of Hanford in the Chelyabinsk Oblast in the Ural mountains actually lofted most of their hottest cold war waste into the atmosphere by neglecting a waste storage tank until the nitrates coalesced into a huge bomb. This is called the Kyshtym disaster, and nothing of its scale ever happened at Hanford.

      In another disaster, the little lake behind the plant where they had been dumping high level waste for years dried up completely in 1967 during a dry summer. Winds blew the waste around contaminating everyone/thing in the region. The lake and the waste is still there and they are still dumping supposedly only 'medium' level waste into it, and low level waste is still being dumped into the lakes in the immediate area. Some nations in Europe, you see, employ Mayak to refine reactor fuel.

      Hanford did discharge highly diluted, long lived isotopes into the river. The GP mentions retention basins and leaves out several other mitigations Hanford used in dealing with the waste. The Soviets made no such effort. Waste from Mayak when directly into the Techa river, undiluted in any manner during the early years of operation.

      There are many legitimate parallels between Hanford and Mayak, physics and the urgency of the nuclear arms race being the same for both Americans and Soviets. The Soviets, however, produced a couple orders of magnitude more damage. A difference easily large enough to be one of kind, rather than degree.

    3. Re:Nuclear disaster area in the United States by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think project Green Run tells us how much the military cared about not contaminating the civilian population.

  15. Re: neo-cons stealing from the feds. by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    Name calling? It is no more name calling than referring to Obama as a dem, liberal, or even left-winger.

    In addition, nm went from 1 of the top 5 ran states to 2nd to last worst ran state.
    The level of incomprtence shown by neo-cons like Martinez is nothing less than staggering. She and her cronies took a state in a great position, and destroyed it.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  16. Re: neo-cons stealing from the feds. by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    He obviously meant NM.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  17. Rah rah nuclear power! by Tetetrasaurus · · Score: 0

    Although this was a nuclear weapons facility, this is just one example of the dangers of nuclear power. It ain't worth the risk, and thorium is a pipe dream at this point. Invest in renewables, which are making amazing gains practically every week!

    1. Re:Rah rah nuclear power! by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Yes, thank you for your post, Coal industry.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  18. Re:new mexico by jbengt · · Score: 1

    Really?
    Why would they need to give Mexico back to South Americans?

  19. Re: neo-cons stealing from the feds. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The level of incomprtence"

    incomprtence

  20. Re: The real problem of nuclear is close ties to g by Rostin · · Score: 1

    WIPP was designed, owned, and run by the government, or at least by contractors who may as well be government employees. The problematic waste was packed by employees of Los Alamos National Labs, a government facility. I don't know exactly where you intended to go with this, but I very much doubt anyone involved felt that they were somehow beyond government accountability.

  21. There were no more Incas. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1

    That's one of the problems with Slashdot commenters writing comments that are so off-topic. One person said, "Let's give New mexico back to Mexico." The response was "Right after Mexico gives Mexico back to the Incas."

    I intended to say that there were no more Incas, because the Incas contracted European diseases.

  22. What is the sources.list entry? by Optali · · Score: 1

    And more importantly, does it work in vanilla Ubuntu or is it Debian Unstable only?

    --
    -- 29A the number of the Beast