Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Permit Renewal Public Comment

279 Results

Sort:

Comment From: Eddy County (Roberta Gonzales)

4/18/23 @ 5:19 PM
Attachments:

Comment From: Drew D

4/18/23 @ 4:51 PM
I think we have enough radioactive material in the ground underneath New Mexico. I think it's time to stop permitting more to be placed there. It's time that other states take their share of the military's radioactive waste. We don't have to be the n...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Paula McClean

4/18/23 @ 4:29 PM
Attachments:

Comment From: Cathrynn Brown

4/18/23 @ 4:25 PM
Attachments:

Comment From: Sasha Pyle

4/18/23 @ 4:23 PM
Attachments:

Comment From: Bert Snyder

4/18/23 @ 4:02 PM
I am very concerned that DOE is attempting to change the terms under which the state of New Mexico agreed to allow the siting of WIPP. it was agreed that this would be a PILOT PROJECT, for storage of transuranic waste from LALN, with an expiration of...↓
No other sites have been established and DOE now wants to include plutonium waste. In the absence of other repositories and the change in the materials to be stored it is clear that WIPP will no longer be a pilot project ;but rather the only facility in the nation permanently. That isn't what we signed on for.
In order to accomplish this the plutonium will be transported back and forth across country through 10 states via semi-truck for thousands of miles for years with the possibility of fatal accidents potentially impacting communities along the route. The fatality risk is very high as powdered plutonium is a known carcinogen.
It is inappropriate for New Mexico to be the nation's only nuclear dump in perpetuity.
No attachments

Comment From: Meiklejohn Law Firm LLC (Douglas Meiklejohn)

4/18/23 @ 3:59 PM
Attachments:

Comment From: Los Alamos Downwind Neighbors (Janet Greenwald)

4/18/23 @ 3:42 PM
Attachments:

Comment From: John Goshen

4/18/23 @ 3:25 PM
I strongly support renewing the permit for WIPP. The facility has a superb operating and safety record. It is the most cost effective and safe way of disposing of / storing low level nuclear waste. Safe transportation routes to the facility have also...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Dana Middleton

4/18/23 @ 2:26 PM
Attachments:

Comment From: City of Hobbs New Mexico (Sam Cobb)

4/18/23 @ 2:05 PM
Attachments:

Comment From: Caroline Evans

4/18/23 @ 1:42 PM
Attachments:

Comment From: Robert Josephs

4/18/23 @ 1:02 PM
I am opposed to this extension and to the convoluted and hazardous waste disposal scheme which is now operating. New Mexico is not DOE's radio active dump !
No attachments

Comment From: Geoff Campbell

4/18/23 @ 11:50 AM
WIPP Renewal Draft Permit

To the New Mexico Environment Department,

New Mexicans deserve better from their elected officials than to have the DOE quietly try to push through a project as seismic as WIPP expansion and extension. WIPP was a pilot program...↓

As a Democrat I'm really concerned that I don't know which way Governor Grisham is leaning regarding the extension and expansion of WIPP. On this issue there should be transparency. I need to know that my children will grow up in a safe environment where leadership counts, where standing up to the DOE with their broken promises counts, because powdered plutonium has NO business being driven back and forth along our highways and Interstates.

Transporting powdered plutonium across 10 states is an absolutely insane idea! Deregulation on our highways and pressures from companies to push long-haul drivers to the limit have greatly increased highway accidents and fatalities on all our roads. Data Driven:Truckers, Technology, and the New Workplace Surveillance by Karen Levy (Princeton University Press, 2022) states; `Truck crashes on US highways kill about five thousand people and injure about one hundred and fifty thousand more per year'; as Levy notes, such numbers have been climbing steadily. Why does it make sense to the DOE to drive plutonium from Texas to New Mexico, across the country to Florida and then back to New Mexico when we all know tractor trailers jackknife every day in the U.S.? (FMCSA United States Department of Transportation lists 4,842 large trucks crashed by jackknife in 2020 alone)

WIPP must close in 2024 as was promised to all New Mexicans. Sincere negotiations with the DOE should only take place after closing the `pilot' program to insure goodwill between the DOE and the people of New Mexico.

Thank you very much for taking my comments.
No attachments

Comment From: Margaret Hadderman

4/18/23 @ 10:48 AM
The WIPP facility in NM should not be the ONLY nuclear weapons repository in the entire U.S., so start planning storage facilities for other states with nuclear plants right now. Please also stop upgrading and increasing the types of radioactive wast...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Phyllis Gerk

4/18/23 @ 10:26 AM
I've never believed WIPP should have started at all. The government already put our communities in danger of developing severe health issues for people in this area with the gnome project,done back in 1956. It was a failed underground nuclear bomb t...↓
How long did they expect the salt to hold that radiation? Especially with the mining and oil field drilling? Our community should have been compensated appropriately for these actions in itself. Don't allow them to potentially keep causing our health to decline. Any chance that it could potentially cause our community to suffer anymore possible severe health issues due just 'needing the space" is too much risk. I am totally against anything that could cause harm to the surrounding communities.
No attachments

Comment From: Mary Burton Riseley

4/18/23 @ 10:24 AM
Attachments:

Comment From: John Voorhees

4/18/23 @ 10:24 AM
Attachments:

Comment From: Ben Levine

4/18/23 @ 9:46 AM
No more toxic waste dumping in NM! Enough already.
No attachments

Comment From: Energy Communities Alliance (Sarah Templeton)

4/18/23 @ 8:25 AM
Please see the attached letter of support for the WIPP Mission signed by ECA Chair Mayor Brent Gerry, City of West Richland, Washington.
Attachments:

Comment From: Los Alamos County (Danielle Duran)

4/18/23 @ 8:12 AM
Please see the attached letter of support for the WIPP Mission signed by Los Alamos County Council Chair Denise Derkacs.
Attachments:

Comment From: Bill Tiwald

4/18/23 @ 8:05 AM
Bill Tiwald
As originally agreed, yhe federal government finds and begins using other waste repositories in other states.
I support the significant provisions and common sense regulations NMED has put forward around
the site, including:
• A permit term o...↓
• Automatic permit revocation if Congress changes the law increasing the disposal limit of 6.2
million cubic feet of storage
• Quarterly public forums that provide notice and allow for ample opportunity for public
engagement on Permit and non-Permit related issues
While I fully support these provisions, further steps can and should be taken, specifically around the inclusion of community voices. For many New Mexicans, English is not their first language, and Internet access is uncertain at best. For these individuals, many of whom live in frontline communities, the public notice of comment or a hearing only posted on DOE and NMED websites,in English, is not enough
No attachments

Comment From: Cynthia McNamara

4/17/23 @ 5:48 PM
Attachments:

Comment From: Stephen Schmidt

4/17/23 @ 5:41 PM
I do not want to see NM become a dumping ground for the nations nuclear waste without input by the public and not just when the permit is up for renewal. Permit length should be shortened so as things change on the ground things provided by the per...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Susan Bergholz

4/17/23 @ 4:54 PM
WIPP must close in 2024 as promised. The federal government sold the WIPP project to us as ending in 25 years. By attempting to keep it open until 2080 or worse, forever, the DOE has shown itself as a master manipulator. This jeopardises its credibi...↓
WIPP must stop adding new types of waste and new sources from which that waste comes
WIPP is not being honest and transparent with the public, most of whom do not know about the new risks DOE is planning on exposing them to.
No attachments

Comment From: Ann White

4/17/23 @ 2:24 PM
A deal is a deal. A contract is a contract. DOE you are breaking your deal - the contract that You made with New Mexico. This DOE Permit application is dishonest and deceitful, a bait and switch. Could it be the DOE is using a piecemeal tactic over ...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Mary McGuire

4/17/23 @ 1:05 PM
I strongly urge you to:
*Demand the DOE explore other states for new nuclear waste facilities; the NM WIPP was meant to be a pilot project only
*The DOE is not being transparent and honest ~ they are not notifying NM residents about the risks of their ...↓
*That WIPP close in 2024 as promised
No attachments

Comment From: Village of Loving Mayor (Ricky Fuentes)

4/17/23 @ 12:56 PM
As Mayor for the Village of Loving, the Village and I fully support WIPP. WIPP has been and continues to be a vital contributor to our local economy and provides great employment opportunities for people within the Village, including myself. Many do ...↓

As for the proposed permit changes from NMED, I feel these would have a negative impact on the life of WIPP, more importantly negatively impact the surrounding communities, by the early closure and loss of so many good paying jobs. WIPP is a National Treasure for Our Nation and plays an important role in our future. It is imperative that WIPP continues its Mission.

Mayor for the Village of Loving
Ricky C. Fuentes
No attachments

Comment From: Raychel Kool

4/17/23 @ 12:55 PM
Attachments:

Comment From: Elizabeth Romero

4/17/23 @ 12:45 PM
When WHIPP was opened the citizens of New Mexico were given a definite closing date. This commitment has to be honored. We were assured the legacy waste at Los Alamos would go to WHIPP, and this would be an environmental gain for NM. This has only pa...↓
Turning LANL from a research lab to a nuclear weapons production site is insane. We lack water and housing for all the need workers. We are still dealing with cold war legacy waste. The road to Los Alamos is dangerous in winter, and there is no way to evacuate during part of the year.
Shipping nuclear waste back and forth through almost a dozen states is insane. It exposes millions of Americans to possible deadly poison. People here in NM are just beginning to awaken to the dangers. You have not been transparent in your plans. People in other states will be as upset as we are when they learn what you are planning.
It's time to go back to the drawing board.
No attachments

Comment From: Beth Cohen

4/17/23 @ 12:19 PM
To the New Mexico Environment Department:

I am a proud resident of Albuquerque New Mexico, and I moved here in 1983 from the polluted over-crowded northeastern Atlantic coast to enjoy the clean open spaces and natural areas that our state of New Mexic...↓

I am asking you to insist that the DOE close WIPP in 2024 as originally promised to our state and see that they start planning now for making repositories in other states. Do not allow the DOE to think of WIPP as the only nuclear weapons repository in the country. It was promised to New Mexicans as a pilot plant, with others being located in states other than New Mexico.

The DOE is not being honest and transparent with the people of New Mexico, most of whom do not know about the new risks the DOE is planning on exposing us to. The DOE is being carelessly reckless in planning to transport surplus plutonium in a powdered form across 10 states, past many communities twice for each shipment, and assuming that no accident will happen.

The federal government sold the WIPP project to us as ending in 25 years. By attempting to keep it open until 2080 or worse, forever, the DOE has shown itself as a master manipulator. This jeopardizes its credibility in negotiating with other states as well as New Mexico in any future projects.

It is time to put an end to this deadly and dangerous masquerade. It is bad business for our state. It is time that we move on to doing business that looks to a safer, cleaner and environmentally sound future for our state.

Thank you for your time and consideration.
Beth Cohen
Albuquerque, NM
No attachments

Comment From: Mike Currier

4/17/23 @ 12:05 PM
I live in Carlsbad, and I am proud to support the WIPP project. I do not support any permit changes that would hinder the quality and important work of WIPP.
No attachments

Comment From: Betty Kuhn

4/17/23 @ 12:05 PM
Attachments:

Comment From: Donald Meaders

4/17/23 @ 11:59 AM
I'm firmly opposed to any expansion of the WIPP terms. Any time extention would be limited to the the time lost due to the explosion and clean up. This lost time was solely the result of the mishandling of the waste by LANL and not discovered by the ...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Arla Ertz

4/17/23 @ 9:17 AM
Attachments:

Comment From: Elizabeth Smith

4/17/23 @ 9:14 AM
Attachments:

Comment From: Eileen O'Shaughnessy

4/17/23 @ 9:11 AM
Attachments:

Comment From: Gail Robin Seydel

4/17/23 @ 9:10 AM
Attachments:

Comment From: Hildegard Adams

4/17/23 @ 9:04 AM
Attachments:

Comment From: Sylviana Diaz

4/17/23 @ 9:03 AM
Attachments:

Comment From: Rose Jordan

4/17/23 @ 9:01 AM
Attachments:

Comment From: William Beems

4/17/23 @ 8:59 AM
Attachments:

Comment From: Lauro Silva

4/16/23 @ 2:44 PM
Attachments:

Comment From: John Lee

4/16/23 @ 12:27 PM
Attachments:

Comment From: Kathryn Albrecht

4/14/23 @ 9:44 PM
I support NMED's proposed regulations for nuclear waste storage, re: WIPP renewal draft permit, with:

A requirement that the state receive a report each year on the federal government's efforts to find a permanent repository in another state
Automatic ...↓
Quarterly public forums that provide notice and allow for ample opportunity for public engagement on Permit and non-Permit related issues

While we fully support these provisions, the permit also should include measures for giving public notice. Notice in written English on the internet is not adequate. Many New Mexicans don't have internet access, and many don't communicate in written English. Thank you ~
No attachments

Comment From: John Thayer

4/14/23 @ 12:19 PM
I oppose any changes to the original agreement to approve WIPP, especially the attempts to expand the original agreement beyond the closure date of 2024, the attempts to include waste not generated by the original Manhattan Project, and attempts to i...↓
I stand in agreement with NMED's requirements as outlined below:
A requirement that the state receive a report each year on the federal government's efforts to find a permanent repository in another state
Automatic permit revocation if Congress changes the law increasing the disposal limit of 6.2 million cubic feet of storage
Quarterly public forums that provide notice and allow for ample opportunity for public engagement on Permit and non-Permit related issues. I fully support these provisions but I also request that the permit also should include measures for giving public notice. Notice in written English on the internet is not adequate. Many New Mexicans don't have internet access, and many don't communicate in written English. The permit should require that notice be given using other equitably accessible means. If DOE cannot abide by these requirements then their permit must be denied! New Mexico has been a nuclear sacrifice zone for far too long and the federal government MUST be held to their original agreements, and NOT be allowed to change the rules whenever it suits them!
No attachments

Comment From: John Acker

4/14/23 @ 11:56 AM
As a long-time resident of New Mexico I have always participated in the public forums on our state and its dangerous relation to Nuclear production, containment and elimination. It is too critical for the future of our citizens not to do everything ...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Trudy O'Toole

4/14/23 @ 10:32 AM
WIPP Renewal Draft Permit. NM should not allow hazardous waste to continue to be stored here or transported through the State.
No attachments

Comment From: Jean Nichols

4/14/23 @ 9:48 AM
Attachments:

Comment From: Mary White

4/14/23 @ 9:38 AM
I want WHIPP project out of New Mexico and no further nuclear storage or activity of any kind here ever again. The federal government has been bad stewards of our environment since Trinity. Why should we ever trust good stewardship now.
No attachments

Comment From: Robin Reindle

4/14/23 @ 7:53 AM
I am against extending the permit for WIPP. We need to work on the other end by eliminating all sources of nuclear waste until we know how to safely handle them. New Mexico refuses to be America's nuclear waste dump.
No attachments

Comment From: margo wyse

4/14/23 @ 6:02 AM
new mexico is not a dumping ground!!!
No attachments

Comment From: C. H.

4/13/23 @ 6:03 PM
WIPP should NOT be renewed. It should NEVER have been developed in the first place. New Mexico has tolerated this abomination with the intention of it bring short lived. It's deadline is coming up and should not be extended. We've already had sev...↓

Nuclear waste is a minimum of 250,000 years until it is no longer dangerous. How does that fit in with the short deadline about to expire? Nuclear power is just a dressing for Nuclear arms. The waste created from all of this dangerous activity is nothing short of a death sentence for many associated with it.

NO NUCLEAR POWER, NO NUCLEAR WASTE, NO MORE WIPP!!

Why is it that we are so invested in such destructive means to support our energy needs when using any amount of all the $$ allocated could easily pursue non lethal solutions, non- military solutions. WE NEED ALTERNET SOLUTIONS FOR THIS WASTE, FOR STORING IT (as it is necessary), AND RETHINKING WHY WE NEED IT IN THE FIRST PLACE. THIS IS NO SOLUTION.
No attachments

Comment From: Anna Katherine

4/13/23 @ 4:20 PM
I oppose renewing WIPP's 10 year Hazardous Waste Faciity Operating Permit.
It is too dangerous to change the type of waste to include pure plutonium.
Accidents can happen. I do not want any increased risk of exposure to plutonium for New Mexico.
WIPP wa...↓
country. This has not happened, and there is little motivation to develop other facilities if
WIPP's capacity were to double.
There are already too many nuclear weapons. We do not need to be producing more.
Please protect our environment and our health by refusing to allow WIPP to continue.
No attachments

Comment From: Carol Johnson

4/13/23 @ 2:41 PM
WIPP RENEWAL DRAFT PERMIT: I have lived in northern New Mexico for 27 years. I moved here for the beauty, the clean air, water and wildlife. I am 85 years old and I plan to spend the rest of my life here. I object to the continuing WIPP project a...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Rita Glasscock

4/13/23 @ 2:29 PM
WE DO NOT WANT ANY NUCLEAR WASTE IN NEW MEXICO ! ENOUGH PEOPLE HAVE SUFFERED FROM THE NUCLEAR TESTS FALLOUT HERE IN NEW MEXICO !!!
No attachments

Comment From: Daniel Drobnis

4/13/23 @ 2:14 PM
After spending a reported $15 billion on Yucca Mountain, the government has turned its back on this investment in permanent waste storage for political reasons.

WIPP was not designed for permanent waste storage from nuclear power plants. Particularly...↓

New Mexico is being asked to rescue the federal government from reneging on Congress's original plan for permanent waste storage at Yucca Mountain. This is simple bad faith, and I do not believe it should be imposed on the citizens of New Mexico.

I believe that the following should be done:
1. Power Plant waste should be reprocessed to recover fissionable fuel as is done in France.
2. The resulting high level waste should be deposited in Yucca Mountain as originally mandated.
3. WIPP should be used as originally intended for storing only TRU waste from weapons sites.

---Daniel Drobnis
Santa Fe, NM
No attachments

Comment From: Heidi Brooks

4/13/23 @ 1:49 PM
I support the proposed regulations regarding: reporting to the state re federal efforts to find a permanent repository in another state; automatic permit revocation if Congress increases the current disposal limit; and quarterly public forums, with n...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Stacie Slay

4/13/23 @ 1:01 PM
New Mexico and it's citizens have already done our part and then-some. DOE do not dump the country's nuclear waste on the poor.
No attachments

Comment From: Carlene Roters

4/13/23 @ 12:50 PM
I support NMED 's proposed regulations for nuclear waste storage.

Carlene Roters
No attachments

Comment From: Stephanie Gudeman

4/13/23 @ 12:28 PM
It is most important when you consider off loading a bunch of radioactive by products that they are stored and maintained in a way that will keep them contained and out of the earth and ground water for 90 to 24,000 years depending on which plutonium...↓
No attachments

Comment From: City of Richland (Terry Christensen)

4/13/23 @ 12:25 PM
Attachments:

Comment From: Sally Blakemore

4/13/23 @ 11:23 AM
In 1990 when the DOE came to Santa Fe for a total bit of government theater, I attended. I saw the sham of public comment. To bring more waste to this state is a travesty, a disappointment and a sell out of Native life and the life of those locked up...↓
Attachments:

Comment From: Joanie V. Connors

4/13/23 @ 11:11 AM
To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing to express my support for your proposed regulations for nuclear waste storage and requirement that the state receive a report each year on the federal government's efforts to find a permanent repository in another ...↓
I specifically support the required automatic permit revocation if Congress changes the law increasing the disposal limit of 6.2 million cubic feet of storage. And I support the quarterly public forums that provide notice and allow for ample opportunity for public engagement on Permit and non-Permit related issues
Thank you,
No attachments

Comment From: Robert L Anderson

4/13/23 @ 10:50 AM
As a "pilot" project originally which the people of NM agreed to the time has come to shut this place down, not expand and extend its life. Yes, there is a problem with what to do with this kind waste but putting it under something so it is not seen...↓
No attachments

Comment From: roger peirce

4/13/23 @ 10:43 AM
I support your proposed regulations for nuclear waste storage that I feel should include:

A requirement that the state receive a report each year on the federal government's efforts to find a permanent repository in another state
Automatic permit revoc...↓
Quarterly public forums that provide notice and allow for ample opportunity for public engagement on Permit and non-Permit related issues

The permit also should include measures for giving public notice. Notice in written English on the internet is not adequate. Many New Mexicans don't have internet access, and many don't communicate in written English. The permit should require that notice be given using other equitably accessible means.
No attachments

Comment From: Valorie Furlano

4/13/23 @ 10:43 AM
I fully support these provisions, the permit also should include measures for giving public notice. Notice in written English on the internet is not adequate. Many New Mexicans don't have internet access, and many don't communicate in written English...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Ellen Barber

4/13/23 @ 10:37 AM
I support the proposed regulations for nuclear waste storage, including
(1) a requirement that the state receive a report each year on the federal government's efforts to find a permanent repository in another state,
(2) automatic permit revocation if ...↓
(3) quarterly public forums that provide notice and allow ample opportunity for public engagement on permit-related and non-permit-related issues.

However, the permit should also include measures for giving public notice using EQUITABLY ACCESSIBLE MEANS. Notice in written English on the internet is NOT adequate. Many New Mexicans don't have internet access, and many do not communicate primarily in written English.

With the addition of adequate public notice measures, I support the proposed regulations for nuclear waste storage.
No attachments

Comment From: Wendy Volkmann

4/13/23 @ 10:21 AM
I support these provisions:

*** A requirement that the state receive a report each year on the federal government's efforts to find a permanent repository in another state
***Automatic permit revocation if Congress changes the law increasing the dispos...↓
***Quarterly public forums that provide notice and allow for ample opportunity for public engagement on Permit and non-Permit related issues

I urge you to add measures for giving public notice.

I also urge you to make the public notice accessible to all New Mexicans. Notice in written English on the internet is not adequate. Many New Mexicans don't have internet access, and many don't communicate in written English. The permit should require that notice be given using other equitably accessible means.

Thank you for taking my comment.
No attachments

Comment From: Richard Ferrary

4/13/23 @ 10:18 AM
I have personally toured the WIPP facility. While I was impressed by the level of professionalism and precaution, it remains a potentially hazardous project. I support your agency's efforts to ensure that New Mexico's land, air, and water are protect...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Anne Petrokubi

4/13/23 @ 9:53 AM
Nuclear energy is a failed source of energy. We must end t. New Mexico is unfairly targeted by this industry to suffer the by-products of nuclear energy.
No attachments

Comment From: Dr. Bob MacPherson

4/13/23 @ 9:47 AM
I'm a retired scientist living in Santa Fe, NM.
No attachments

Comment From: Sue Noel

4/13/23 @ 9:37 AM
Daily air and water quality readings should be done and released to the public. Nevada has successfully kept Yucca Mountain from being a high level waste repository. I would like to see New Mexico follow suit as best we can. Public announcements shou...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Stephanie Darrow

4/13/23 @ 9:28 AM
WIPP Renewal Draft Permit.
There should be testing daily on air and water quality and readings for radiation DAILY. These readings should be published for public consumption weekly so citizens can have knowledge of what is going on. Any leaks or chan...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Robin Laughlin

4/13/23 @ 9:26 AM
requirement should be included in equitable means to give people notice.
No attachments

Comment From: Patty Navarrete

4/13/23 @ 9:16 AM
We are seniors with health issues and want to help keep New Mexico safe from nuclear waste! We support NMED's proposed regulations for nuclear waste storage.
No attachments

Comment From: Marilynn Weaver

4/13/23 @ 9:16 AM
Please protect us
No attachments

Comment From: NS Khalsa

4/13/23 @ 9:08 AM
A requirement that the state receive a report each year on the federal government's efforts to find a permanent repository in another state
Automatic permit revocation if Congress changes the law increasing the disposal limit of 6.2 million cubic feet...↓
Quarterly public forums that provide notice and allow for ample opportunity for public engagement on Permit and non-Permit related issues
While we fully support these provisions, the permit also should include measures for giving public notice. Notice in written English on the internet is not adequate. Many New Mexicans don't have internet access, and many don't communicate in written English. The permit should require that notice be given using other equitably accessible means!
No attachments

Comment From: Town of Ashford (john pfeffer)

4/13/23 @ 5:02 AM
The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) is a unique facility that plays a critical role in managing the nation's nuclear waste. Located in southeastern New Mexico, WIPP is the only underground repository in the United States designed specifically for ...↓

The importance of WIPP extends beyond its role as a disposal site. The facility is also a leader in nuclear cleanup and serves as a model for other communities facing similar challenges. WIPP has developed a comprehensive approach to nuclear waste management that involves not only disposal but also characterization, treatment, transportation, and packaging. This approach has proven effective in ensuring the safe and efficient cleanup of nuclear sites across the country.

In addition to its technical expertise, WIPP has also demonstrated a commitment to community engagement and outreach. The facility has established strong partnerships with local communities and tribal nations, working collaboratively to address concerns and ensure that the cleanup process is transparent and accountable. WIPP has also established an innovative education program that promotes science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) education and encourages local students to pursue careers in the nuclear industry.

Overall, the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant serves as a critical resource for other front-line nuclear cleanup communities in the United States. Its success in managing TRU waste and its comprehensive approach to nuclear cleanup provide valuable lessons and best practices for other facilities and communities facing similar challenges.
No attachments

Comment From: Roane County Government (Tenne... (Wade Creswell)

4/12/23 @ 2:17 PM
Please refer to the attached pdf for comments from the Office of the Roane County Executive regarding the Oak Ridge, TN Reservation and its dependence upon WIPP to fulfill its mission as charged by the US Department of Energy.
Attachments:

Comment From: Ken Ahrens

4/11/23 @ 9:53 AM
My name is Ken Ahrens and I'm the City of Carlsbad's Fire Chief. I just wanted to submit these comments in support of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. WIPP has been a great neighbor, and the project has an impeccable safety record. We're very proud t...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Carol Bahmueller

4/06/23 @ 5:00 PM
I strongly urge NMED to stand fast and say 'no' to DOE's attempt to remove limits
to the original mission.
No attachments

Comment From: Kathy Nickodemus

4/06/23 @ 6:29 AM
Please stay with NM original agreements on WIPP
No attachments

Comment From: Mira Geroy

4/05/23 @ 9:31 AM
I am very concerned regarding several aspects of the WIPP pilot project renewal. First of all there was an agreement to designate additional sites in other states for some of the waste to be placed and this has not happened yet. Before this permit is...↓
In addition, I am concerned about the safety of transportation of the nuclear waste through a metropolitan area ( Santa Fe). The careful transport methods need to be delineated in writing in detail and guaranteed before renewing the permit.

Sincerely,
Mira Geroy
Santa Fe, NM
No attachments

Comment From: Linda Trageser

4/04/23 @ 9:42 PM
In keeping with legislation passed in the state of NM roughly 25 years ago, WIPP should be closed and sealed in April, 2024, and should not receive any more waste after April, 2024. It would be against the law to expand WIPP, or to expand the categor...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Jana Theis

4/04/23 @ 2:38 PM
New waste streams that weren't considered appropriate for WIPP should not be included now. Any extension to the current permit, expiring in 2024, should have a defined, limited time period. Other repositories should be built in other states. New Mexi...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Pamela Rogers

4/03/23 @ 5:44 PM
The agreement we made as a state was for WIPP to be done with by 2024. Well, we, the public, are certainly done. We don't need dangerous waste traipsing back and forth across our state and then all the way across the South along poor communities th...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Roberta Colton

4/03/23 @ 5:35 PM
I am against issuance of the WIPP Renewal Draft Permit because WIPP was established as a temporary storage facility until 2024. Nuclear waste should be processed and disposed of near the site where it is generated instead of transporting it to Los A...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Donna Balsamo Thiersch

3/31/23 @ 4:53 PM

My name is Donna Thiersch and I live in Santav Fe. My husband at the age of 43 died of cancer after asbestos exposure before any research strong enough was able to penetrate the public on its danger. So now I have to speak up on this permit with its ...↓

Attachments:

Comment From: Sarah Stewart

3/31/23 @ 12:00 PM
While we fully support the new provisions, further steps can and should be taken, specifically around inclusion of community voices. For many New Mexicans, English is not their first language, and internet access is uncertain at best. For these indiv...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Gay Kernan

3/31/23 @ 11:40 AM
Attachments:

Comment From: S. Kay

3/31/23 @ 10:06 AM
Honestly---we have been storing plenty of "junk" here in New Mexico over all these many years. It's now the turn of OTHER STATES to step up to the plate & store it outside of NM. I keep praying that all this waste will end & there will be a way to ...↓
Thank you.
SGMKJ
No attachments

Comment From: Gregory Corning

3/30/23 @ 2:42 PM
I strongly support the New Mexico Environment Department's provisions to add to the WIPP agreement (see "NMED PROPOSED CHANGES IN DRAFT PERMIT" at https://hwbdocuments.env.nm.gov/Waste Isolation Pilot Plant/221220.pdf?sourceid=1017527&emci=2ca047dd-3...↓

We do need to ensure that all advisories, documents, announcements, and so on that pertain to WIPP operations and permitting are presented in Spanish as well as in English.
Thank you.
No attachments

Comment From: Bob Forrest

3/30/23 @ 1:34 PM
This is Bob Forrest, former mayor of the City of Carlsbad. We began looking at WIPP because Carlsbad's economy was dying out at the time. Our unemployment was high and many of the potash mines were closing. Look at Carlsbad now – you have one of the ...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Karen Boehler

3/29/23 @ 7:43 PM
While I fully support the provisions you are proposing, further steps can and should be taken, specifically around inclusion of community voices. For many New Mexicans, English is not their first language, and internet access is uncertain at best. Fo...↓

Please expand access to this critical information.
No attachments

Comment From: Pamela Irving

3/29/23 @ 3:02 PM
I am basically against storing nuclear waste in New Mexico ... how did this beautiful state get to be a nuclear waste dump? That being said, I applaud the recent new NMED rules and the fact the SB53 will halt Holtec barring state consent (which shoul...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Jeannie Watson

3/29/23 @ 1:32 PM
My name is Jeannie Watson and I have been a resident of Carlsbad for many years. I am in full support of the WIPP project and what it provides to the nation and to our community. I have followed the WIPP project from its inception and feel confiden...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Frances Hardy

3/29/23 @ 11:05 AM
I agrée with NMEDV in increasing accountability and guidelines for the WIPP project and its siting in New Mexico. The permit should extend for 10 years and not the permitting out until 2083 which makes NM a waste repository for nuclear waste that was...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Richard Lopez

3/29/23 @ 8:58 AM
Hello, I'm Richard Lopez retired Fire Chief of Carlsbad. I've lived in Carlsbad my whole life. I fully support the WIPP project. This project plays a very important role to our community and our nation. We are proud to be WIPP's host community. I do ...↓
Richard Lopez
No attachments

Comment From: Debra Cameron

3/29/23 @ 2:24 AM
Please protect our state.
No attachments

[ Previous Page / Next Page ]