As DOE works on WIPP permit modification, public demands better transparency

Attendees questioned the transparency of nuclear waste operations at a federal repository near Carlsbad during a public meeting held Wednesday on proposed changes to the site’s permit to operate, arguing the hearing did not allow meaningful feedback as little prior information was given to the public.

The meeting was held ahead of the Department of Energy’s submission of two permit modification requests (PMRs) for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant that would allow the facility to use four new types of shielded containers to handle waste with higher radioactivity and adjust its audit schedule for generate sites that send waste for disposal.

The PMRs were planned for submission to the New Mexico Environment Department in April, and a subsequent public meeting was planned once accepted. But at the pre-submittal meeting, a newly added condition from the recent 10-year permit renewal, no copies of the draft were offered for public review.

More: US Senate OKs funding bill for New Mexicans impacted by Trinity Site

Non-government organizations in attendance at the meeting said they were unable to develop any questions or feedback without the actual language of the PMRs, chiding the DOE for its apparent failure to provide drafts before the meeting.

Employees with Salado Isolation Mining Contractors (SIMCO), the DOE-hired contractor that runs the WIPP site, did give short power point presentations at the meeting on the two alterations, totaling about 20 minutes, but also did not provide the slides to attendees, furthering their frustration.

“Is it my understanding that there was no draft PMR for us to look at? Then what are we doing? This is unacceptable,” said Joni Arends with Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety. “I don’t understand what DOE is doing six months into the permit.”

More: It's been a decade since the radiological release at WIPP. Here's what has happened since then.

At future pre-submittal meetings, now required for class 2 or higher PMRs under the new permit language enacted in October 2023, which entail significant changes to WIPP’s operations, Arends demanded the DOE and SIMCO furnish copies ahead of time to allow public feedback.

“What new authority does DOE and WIPP have to not provide the PMRs to the public for this meeting? You’re going to have to start all over again,” she said of the approval process. “It’s a waste of time. It’s a waste of taxpayer money.”

‘All we can do is apologize,’ DOE says

Rick Chavez with SIMCO alluded to comments made the previous night during a public forum by DOE Carlsbad Field Office (CBFO) Manager Mark Bollinger who when prompted about the PMR language agreed it should have been provided in advance of the meeting.

More: 489 shipments of nuclear waste made its way to WIPP in 2023, breaking previous records

“As DOE indicated last night, we will be providing the drafts ahead of the pre-submittal meetings,” Chavez said.

Megan McLean, a WIPP specialist with NMED’s Hazardous Waste Bureau, said the state agency was “pushing” to have the DOE provide the language ahead of the meeting to facilitate meaningful dialogue.

“We have at NMED been pushing to have drafts shared ahead of time. This is a learning process, and this is the first pre-submittal meeting we’ve had since the condition was added to the permit. I think the message is getting across and the next one will be better,” McLean said.

More: Feds lose appeal of vacated license for nuclear waste storage site in Permian Basin

She also criticized SIMCO for requiring attendees to request speaking privileges via Zoom during the virtual meeting.

“It seems we need to ask permission to be unmuted. That doesn’t really facilitate a back and forth. In a townhall style meeting, we have a small group in these meetings, we can be cordial enough to not have to raise our hands.”

Michael Gerle, environmental regulatory compliance director with the CBFO apologized for not providing the language to attendees and vowed to do so at future meetings.

More: 'State consent' on nuclear stripped from Senate bill

“I want to apologize that we weren’t able to share it. This is a learning lesson. We did provide the substantive information in our slides on the requests. We’d hoped to start a conversation on the information provided in those slides,” he said. “All I can do is apologize for this event. We do appreciate the feedback.”

Nuclear waste managers attempt to explain changes

Chavez did explain the PMRs further when asked. He said the alteration would allow for four new containers to be used when disposing of nuclear waste at the WIPP site. They would included more shielding and volume, he said, to allow for disposal of different kinds of waste.

With approval of the new drums, WIPP could more easily emplace what is known as remote-handled (RH) waste that has a higher radioactivity than the more common contact-handled (CH) waste. Previously, RH waste was emplaced in the underground via boreholes drilled in the walls, but the containers will allow it to be handled similarly to CH waste, Chavez said.

More: Nuclear waste site near Carlsbad to double in size, take waste until 2083, officials say

“The reason we needed some more shielded containers is to address the range of radioactivity in the inventory of waste,” he said. “It adds more shielding.”

The PMR on audit scheduling, Chavez explained, allows WIPP to use a “graded approach” when planning reviews of waste operations at generator sites – federal nuclear labs and facilities around the country that send waste to WIPP.

Instead of being required to audit every facility annually, this modification would allow WIPP to skip up to two years at sites that don’t ship as much waste and focus on facilities of greater concern like those that ship frequently, have new equipment or contractors.

More: Holtec's New Mexico nuclear waste proposal questioned during federal court hearing

“We would consider the quantity or waste,” Chavez said. “We would also consider their performance for previous audits, also changes in waste types.”

Despite these verbal explanations and the presentations, Steve Zappe, a former scientist with NMED who frequently participates in regulatory process and permitting as a member of the public, said the format of the meeting was unsatisfactory without the actual language to comment on.

“The difference is we don’t have anything to look at,” Zappe said. “This, we don’t believe will be an appropriate manner to hold these pre-submittal meetings.”

Adrian Hedden can be reached at 575-628-5516, achedden@currentargus.com or @AdrianHedden on the social media platform X.

This article originally appeared on Carlsbad Current-Argus: As DOE works to modify WIPP permit, public demands better transparency