LASG header
Follow TrishABQ on Twitter Follow us
 
"Forget the Rest" blog
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
______________________________
NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE ) 
COUNCIL, et. al., ) 
Plaintiffs. ) 
v. )  Civil Action No. CV-97-936-SS 
FEDERICO PENA, et. al., ) 
Defendants. ) 
______________________________)

SECOND DECLARATION OF GREGORY MELLO
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' REPLY TO DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE
TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

I, Gregory Mello, hereby declare as follows this 16th day of June, 1997:

1.  My education and experience previously have been presented to this Court in my affidavits appended to Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction.

2.  This declaration very briefly responds to the declaration of Thomas Baca regarding waste generation and disposal at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL).

3.  Nowhere does Baca challenge the reality that LANL's nuclear waste disposal site (Area G) is running out of capacity and new disposal options will need to be found, and that pit production will exacerbate this problem.  We disagree only on timing and degree, not the existence of these problems.

4.  In paragraph 9, Baca discusses the segmented NEPA analysis of LANL waste management.  This admitted segmentation between not just two but three programmatic environmental impact statements (EISs) makes the NEPA process opaque to all concerned, even assuming these documents agree with each other, which they do not (see reply declaration of Jay Coghlan).  In fact, the Waste Management Programmatic EIS does not discuss expansion options for Area G, and gives (on p. 7-5, Attachment A) an annual capacity for Area G of only 1,300 cubic meters per year, illustrative of the impending crisis that exists in waste management at LANL.  The entire thrust of Baca's declaration is contradicted by this admission.

5.  In subsequent paragraphs, Baca discusses only routine waste generation, omitting the larger category of nonroutine waste generated by dismantlement of contaminated buildings and the cleanup of contaminated sites at LANL. 

6.  Baca confuses (at 10.) discussions in NEPA documents yet to be written with decisions that have been and are being made now, as if a discussion in a document could make environmental impacts disappear.

7.  At 11. and throughout the rest of his declaration, Baca misconstrues me.  For example, I do not say that LANL and DOE will not minimize waste, only that their waste minimization assumptions are ambitious.  Baca correctly states that LANL routine waste has greatly declined due to waste minimization, but omits to say that the nonroutine waste has made up the balance. 

8.  At 16., Baca disputes the options for expansion of Area G I obtained from his staff this spring.

9.  At 17., Baca disputes new waste generation figures complied by the cognizant official in DOE's local area office.

10.  At 19., Baca applies a four-fold assumed waste minimization twice in succession to make a large amount of nonroutine waste to be generated in the CMR upgrades project -- necessary for pit production -- almost go away.    In doing so, he contradicts DOE's CMR environmental assessment, which applied an ambitious four-fold reduction once.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.  Executed this 31st day of March, 1997 at Santa Fe, New Mexico.
___________________________

Gregory Mello

^ back to top

2901 Summit Place NE Albuquerque, NM 87106, Phone: 505-265-1200

home calendar contact contribute search