Cost of the Greater Good: The Erosion of Trust at Carlsbad New Mexico’s Waste Isolation Pilot Plant
by Andres Velez
Site Description:
My location is the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) situated near Carlsbad, New Mexico. The relevant parties to my topic are the Federal Government that implemented the facility, and the residents of Carlsbad New Mexico affected by its operation. I will be primarily focusing on the 2000s, as that’s when most of the environmental issues caused by the WIPP started coming to light and drawing attention. Despite this, I will reach a little further back in order to explore the origins of the facility, and some of the early opposition surrounding it. The actual issue at my site involves the WIPP’s flippant handling of regulatory guidelines, and how this reckless behavior has led to issues such as waste leaks, negatively impacting the Carlsbad community: an issue made worse by the fact that the WIPP is the only facility in the US that can dispose of nuclear waste in a clean manner. My historical question is this: How did both the Federal Government’s desire to prioritize national interest and the Carlsbad community’s lower socioeconomic status impact the WIPP’s accountability? In terms of project significance, I hope my project will shed light into situations where a facility holds national importance, and how the government may sometimes hold this national importance over the importance of the communities more directly impacted by the facility. Even beyond nuclear waste, the government may choose other locations to be ‘sacrificial lambs’ for broader interests, implementing things such as landfills in areas that will be harmed by them. I hope my paper will be able to shed light on this practice, and demonstrate the importance of not forgetting the people who may suffer in the name of the ‘greater good’.
On March 26th, 1999, 500 residents of Carlsbad, New Mexico stood in the middle of a cold, 50 degree desert at three o’clock in the morning.1 The only thing shining through the early-morning darkness were the lights of the facility they were standing beside. They had been standing in those conditions for hours, and no one knew how much longer the wait would be. In spite of the inconvenient conditions, the red, white and blue decorations served as a reminder of why the crowd was there. How could they allow such an important event to be ruined by their own lack of comfort? The honk of a horn suddenly echoed through the air, and a pair of headlights cut through the darkness. The crowd erupted into applause and cheer at the sight. In their minds, Carlsbad was about to undergo a revolution. The truck approached the facility, a large barrel of hazardous nuclear waste strapped to its back: the first of what became thousands in subsequent decades.
That crowd was applauding the March 26th opening of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), which had been approved after several government campaigns. The facility was, at the time, the only storage facility for transuranic waste in the nation. It proved especially useful for storing waste produced by nuclear testing. Both members of the public and local representatives made their support for the facility known. Yet not everyone dragged themselves to the facility’s opening. Among those who chose to stay home, many were skeptical of the facility due to public health concerns. They tried to impede the facility’s implementation, mobilizing as best they could. Regardless, the facility was eventually approved and implemented, 26 miles east of Carlsbad.
The reaction of Carlsbad’s citizens to the WIPP raises many questions. Why were some people so eager to see nuclear waste, a potential environmental risk, brought to their city? Why did some people oppose the facility’s implementation? Was the facility truly as beneficial as many believed? Most importantly, what factors allowed the WIPP’s support to overcome its opposition, leading to the facility’s establishment? What follows argues that local support for the plant succeeded for three main reasons: Because of the WIPP’s federal importance as the country’s only nuclear waste disposal facility, its ability to diversify Carlsbad’s economy, and the government’s assurances of regulation, the Carlsbad public overlooked shortcomings in this regulation, exposing them to unnecessary risks.
In establishing this answer, this paper will explore the reasons behind the local support the WIPP received, as well as the outcome of that support. It will begin by outlining the general position of the United States during the 1990s, before transitioning into nuclear waste issues in the country. The country’s need for the WIPP will be established, and discussion will shift to Carlsbad itself. Carlsbad’s history will be detailed, providing insight into the structure of its economy. This will be the basis for a discussion about support for the WIPP. This will then segue into a contrasting discussion about opposition to the WIPP. Following this, three strategies undertaken by the federal government to earn the trust of the Carlsbad public will be described. The paper will then analyze the actual performance of the WIPP, focusing on a public health crisis that occurred, and the circumstances that enabled it. The paper will conclude by elaborating on continuing issues facing Carlsbad, and on the city’s long-term prospects in relation to the WIPP.
The Nuclear Waste Issue Before WIPP
The subtle development of trust between the US government and public during the 1990s is important in the WIPP’s story. The Cold War concluded in 1991, and the US continued developing both economically and technologically.2 The way the public treated then-president Bill Cinton, and the strategy Clinton took in appealing to them, indicated trust between the public and government. While running on the Democrat platform, Clinton tried to appeal to everyone, a strategy likely facilitated by the US being fresh out of a recession. Its effectiveness can be seen in how the majority of Americans were seemingly unfazed by the Lewinsky scandal, with public opinion polls at the time being at their highest. Trust between government and people during the 1990s will be key in understanding Carlsbad’s reaction to the WIPP.
Also important to understand is the continued relevance of nuclear development, even following the Cold War. The US, under Clinton, had been predominantly focused on internal issues.3 Even so, the government still backed an investigation into WMDs in Iraq, indicating an important detail. The Cold War may have ended, but nuclear technology remained relevant, and would stay that way for the foreseeable future. It’s within this context of expanding trust and continued nuclear relevancy that the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant was ultimately fought for and approved.
The needs of the US at large in storing nuclear waste were a key factor in federal pursuit of the WIPP. The Cold War placed a lot of emphasis on the development of nuclear technology. If the US hadn’t pursued it, they would’ve been outdone by the Soviet Union, militarily and politically. From that, one may view nuclear development as a selfish power-grab by the government. The truth is more complicated. The development of nuclear technology was supported for its peaceful applications. Some believed that nuclear energy was “synonymous with social progress and economic security.”4 It was presented as an alternative to fossil fuels, and a solution to the shortcomings of energy usage, including shortages, high cost, and pollution. This positive stance was largely pushed by “political and corporate interests,” which may appear suspect. Regardless, there was truth to this perspective, as nuclear tests were performed to test practical uses. The Project Gnome and Project Plowshare tests were performed for this very reason, testing construction applications of nuclear technology.5 Though even peaceful testing came with issues.
One of the biggest issues that emerged was the failure of the government to take the health risks of nuclear testing seriously. During the first three decades of nuclear testing, nuclear waste was not a concern at all, and was instead considered an obstacle in the way of the aforementioned technological progress.6 Because of this, the US went a long time without a plan to store such waste, giving radiation a window to spread. This mentality, prioritizing nuclear development over public health, was known as nuclearism: a mentality holding that these consequences were necessary sacrifices to ensure the nation’s security. This mentality led to the problem worsening. Fortunately, the idea of using salt beds to store waste appeared in 1955.7 While this plan spent decades unrealized, it eventually formed the basis for the WIPP.
As the nuclear waste problem worsened in the US, the government began searching for salt beds where this waste could be stored. Administrators targeted Lyons, Kansas for the creation of a temporary facility in the 1970s.8 While the government tried to use the economic benefits to sway the residents, skepticism of the government’s intentions ultimately triumphed.9 The facility in Kansas was never constructed, but that wasn’t the end of the matter. Also during the 1970s, representatives of Carlsbad had been lobbying for a nuclear waste plant to be implemented in their city.10
Fortunately for the government, Carlsbad’s geology made it a potential candidate for establishing a waste storage site. As it turned out, the city contained the same type of salt beds the government was looking for.11 Carlsbad representatives invited the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) to analyze their salt beds, ensuring that the city was a good fit. The AEC approved, and the WIPP’s location was set. It appears that some factors led Carlsbad to be more receptive to the facility than Kansas. This begs the question: what caused Carlsbad to be so receptive to such a significant environmental risk? To answer this, it will be important to provide insight into Carlsbad’s economy.
The Economy of Carlsbad
Carlsbad has a long history, with its unique geology providing the backbone of its economy. While the region was initially occupied by Native Americans and the Spanish, white settlers moved in following the Mexican-American war of 1846.12 Carlsbad was founded by Charles Eddy, his brother, and Amos Bissell. The region containing Carlsbad, Eddy County, would be named after him. Carlsbad itself became famous after the discovery of therapeutic minerals that gave it its namesake. This foreshadowed the economic importance of Carlsbad’s geology.
1925 saw the first discovery of a mineral used in fertilizer that became central to Carlsbad’s economy: Potash. Carlsbad’s financial success was highly dependent on this mineral. Of course, basing its entire economy on Potash was risky, as a Potash crash would be disastrous. “Carlsbad was facing an economic downturn, with about 1,000 people out of work after the U.S. Borax potash mine closed,” indicating that the city was in financial need during the late 1900s.13 Only 3 Potash mines operated in Carlsbad, meaning even one closing down was a significant detriment.14
The WIPP had the potential to mitigate these financial problems. As Jennifer Richter wrote in her dissertation, “the promise of becoming a new American ‘science city,’ such as Los Alamos, was a powerful lure with the Gnome shot, and the idea of increasing federal funding for nuclear projects made WIPP, as well as other nuclear projects, attractive to a region tethered to boom-and-bust economic cycles.”15 The WIPP could’ve improved Carlsbad’s economy by introducing a more new, more consistent source of income. It was this potential that informed much of the support the WIPP would receive.
Support for WIPP Among the Carlsbad Public
While federal support for the WIPP was predicated on national need, support among the public focused on the financial benefit that the WIPP could provide to Carlsbad. One resident, Vicky Black, stated in a hearing regarding the facility that “taxpayers have paid almost $2 billion to get the WIPP to the point it is today, and it’s time to quit spending our taxes marking time, maintaining a ready repository, and time to use our tax dollars to get on with it to help solve a national problem.”16 Black’s comment demonstrates how members of the public believed further delays would waste their tax dollars. Donna Birchell, a local historian, commented that the WIPP “helped our economy, because potash mining was down and there were lots of strikes. It’s a little frightening, if you have nothing else to fall back on than tourism, and that’s not much during the year.”17 She echoed the idea that WIPP diversified Carlsbad’s economy by offering income separate from Potash. Other indicators also suggest positivity surrounding WIPP. According to Arthur Harry Burgess III, property values in the Carlsbad area increased with the WIPP’s opening.18 This, in combination with the lack of any signs of people fleeing the area, indicates that the WIPP did genuinely offer economic value to Carlsbad: something that should not be disregarded.
Despite the potential benefits, there were many residents of Carlsbad who held misgivings towards the WIPP. The primary factor motivating this was distrust of the federal government. Another resident who spoke at that 1998 hearing was Betty Richards. She accused the facility of having rewritten the criteria of its regulation since it couldn’t comply.19 She also said “the government holds citizens responsible, yet does not hold itself responsible,” a poignant quote characterizing her opposition. This mistrust was also shared by some state representatives.
State politicians, many of which had initially been in favor of the facility, also held reservations. In the late 1970s, a nuclear power plant accident occurred at Three Mile Island, leading some Carlsbad politicians to question the government’s ability to manage the WIPP.20 These reservations didn’t lead to much of a response on the part of politicians. Civilians, on the other hand, were more keen on taking action.
Civilian groups also emerged to combat the facility. Citizens for Alternatives to Radioactive Dumping and the Southwest Research and Information Center are two groups that emerged in opposition to the WIPP, skeptical of both nuclear energy and government intentions.21 Between 1978 and 1980, opposition across New Mexico outnumbered support 2 to 1. With such numbers, it seems astounding that the facility was approved, especially after the Kansas failure. This opposition occurred between the 1970s and 1980s. The government still had time to adjust its strategy and build trust until 1999. This was likely facilitated by the already higher trust the US public held in the government during the 1990s, as previously explored.
Federal Approach at Establishing Trust in Carlsbad
In the time before the WIPP’s opening, the government used several events to build trust among the Carlsbad populace. The EPA was the primary regulator of the WIPP, and held various hearings to receive feedback from the public.22 The fact they held these hearings indicates that they wanted to make the public feel heard, building trust. This approach was also likely bolstered by the fact that the EPA made these hearings seem much more important than they actually were.23 This may not have been intentional, but it likely left many confident that the government was listening, and that their concerns would be addressed. Though this approach wasn’t foolproof. Phoenix Environmental and Enviroissues was critical of the EPA’s hearings. This organization argued that the hearings were too limited for the concerns they needed to address, and that the EPA’s policy to keep technical information private both hampered their ability to connect with the public, even though their attempt was still serviceable.
In addition to holding these hearings, the government attempted to build trust by creating an image of transparency around the WIPP. Doctor Wendell Weart was the Sandia National Laboratories Program Manager, who not only directed site evaluation, but actively engaged with the public to provide information about the WIPP.24 Weart being so willing to speak suggested federal transparency. Furthering this, Weart’s tendency to put more emphasis on the economic benefits of the WIPP, using it as justification for the facility’s implementation, also helped build support for the facility.25 While some locals argued that Weart was using those benefits to mask other concerns, Weart himself didn’t ignore the negatives. Rather, he took a “middle ground,” referencing negatives alongside positives. Although Betty Richards had claimed that the government didn’t hold itself accountable, by admitting federal wrongdoing, Weart made facility oversight look much more honest, further securing the trust of Carlsbad.
Federal positioning of the WIPP as a nationally significant facility was also important in maintaining trust. In the Carlsbad hearing, members of the public responded to concerns. Dee Armstrong, a resident of Carlsbad who attended the hearing, stated that the “WIPP is a well-regulated solution to the national transuranic waste program. It is a fishbowl scrutinized by scientists around the globe.”26 Armstrong referred to the extensive scrutiny, both nationally and internationally, arguing it would prevent issues. State officials followed suit, deferring to the US government and avoiding outright opposition.27 Trust in the government was key in mitigating concerns.
A photo taken at the WIPP’s opening depicts representatives of both Carlsbad, and New Mexico, draped in patriotic colors and American flags. Federal attention transformed the WIPP from a nuclear dump into an advanced facility that should have been regulated to ensure public safety. Residents, such as Jeff Neal, believed Carlsbad was “[stepping] forward to help the nation.” Armstrong also cited the WIPP as being “for the environmental good health of our nation’s people and our environment.” Upon the WIPP’s opening, the streets of Carlsbad were lined with supporters.28 Studies also indicate that support for the WIPP ironically increased with proximity to it, demonstrating the government’s effectiveness at selling this idea. Though, this begs the question: how much of it was real?
Image 1:
Multiple Representatives of both Carlsbad, and New Mexico state all gathering to speak at the 1999 grand opening of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.
Another image of the WIPP taken by Google in 2023 foreshadows potential shortcomings in the WIPP’s regulation.29 One image of the WIPP’s 1999 opening shows flags and decorations covering up the plain fence blocking off the property, but the 2023 image provides a much clearer look at it.30 On the fence, various warning signs are visible, indicating a desire to keep people away from the facility. This raises a question. If the facility was so highly regulated, why was it so important to keep people away from it? Also important to note is the presence of a truck with multiple, seemingly rusted waste barrels strapped to it sitting in front of the facility in the 2023 image. Despite this, there isn’t a single employee in sight attending to them. This also calls into question just how seriously monitored the WIPP was. Despite this, one image alone isn’t enough to determine whether or not the government honored its promises. This question can be most effectively answered by analyzing the WIPP’s actual performance.
Image 2:
The front of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, as it stands in 2023.
Shortcomings in the WIPP’s Regulation
The WIPP’s federal regulation, while mostly effective, failed to prevent an environmental crisis in 2014. The EPA plays a key role in the facility’s regulation, handling public and environmental health concerns.31 The Department of Energy also plays a role, ensuring that waste is properly labeled, measured, and tracked. Despite this, the EPA sits above the DOE, auditing it to make sure it fulfills its responsibilities. The EPA and DOE are both federal organizations, meaning all regulation happens on the federal level. This reflects the WIPP’s national importance, and reflects the repeated statements by Carlsbad residents citing federal regulation as justification to disregard environmental concerns. Even so, a waste leak still occurred in 2014, which left 13 employees testing positive for contamination, among other minor health abnormalities.32 In spite of the repeated assurances of federal regulation preventing environmental issues, there were still cracks in the facility’s regulatory framework.
The 2014 leak did not come out of nowhere, instead being the largest in a set of quiet failures. An EPA investigation into the leak was conducted, shedding light on its source. The EPA determined that it was caused by a compromised storage drum, damaged due to an unexpected chemical reaction with a material meant to absorb liquids in the container.33 The EPA did claim that the facility was mostly abiding by regulatory standards, but it did reference “americium and plutonium results from air samples,” and how “the verification identified a number of deviations from stated requirements or expectations. EPA’s review of the calculations also identified apparent flaws in how results are calculated.” This suggests the existence of holes in the WIPP’s regulatory framework. If these issues were so simple for the EPA to find, why weren’t they found and addressed sooner? It’s also strange that the EPA only found these things after an environmental issue occurred. Perhaps this was simply a fluke, and the WIPP reorganized to resolve its shortcomings.
Unfortunately, holes in regulation persisted, even after the 2014 leak, indicating a continuing failure of the federal government to honor its promises of stringent regulation. In 2022, the United States Government Accountability Office created a report, criticizing aspects of the WIPP’s construction.34 This report exposed similar issues to those surrounding 2014 leaks. It exposed how the DOE was not required to develop a corrective plan for addressing construction issues, and had no methods to determine whether issues were addressed: a substantial weak point. It further criticized the DOE for acknowledging regulatory delays without providing any solution to them, in addition to lacking details in its risk register, and not having an achievable schedule. Even after the 2014 incident, not all holes have been filled. Betty Richards claimed that the government didn’t hold itself accountable. While many wrote her off, there may have been truth to her words. The repeated, visible issues in the WIPP’s regulation don’t paint the picture of a nationally important organization receiving full government attention. They indicate a form of neglect. Perhaps the public not taking the government’s showmanship at face value and involving themselves in the facility’s regulation, could have solved these shortcomings.
The WIPP In Broader Context
On March 26, 1999, 500 residents of Carlsbad stood in the middle of a cold desert at three o’clock in the morning, their discomfort shrouded by the hopes they had for the WIPP. Worn down by the elements, the red, white and blue decorations gave them confidence in the future. The people of Carlsbad had faith in the government, and in the benefits that the WIPP could offer their city. Though some people were unconvinced by the government’s claims. When the crowd saw that first truck carrying waste down the street, their first instincts were to clap and cheer rather than to boo and protest. Were they right to do so? Or should they have been more cautious? Perhaps the truth lies somewhere in between.
The WIPP facility was as beneficial as it was risky for the people of Carlsbad. It did, and continues to provide benefits to both country and state. It actively helped contain the radiation that spread as a result of federal nuclear testing. It did diversify Carlsbad’s economy, even seemingly increasing property values. These benefits were very real. There were, of course, concerns: concerns that the government claimed wouldn’t be an issue. They promised extensive regulation, and tried to be transparent with things such as the EPA’s public hearings, attempting to earn the public’s trust. This worked out, facilitating the WIPP’s eventual approval. In spite of this, the government’s honesty was called into question with not only the 2014 waste leaks, but the shortcomings in its construction regulations that emerged in the 2020s. Ultimately, the government’s promises may have been overstated, but that doesn’t invalidate all of the WIPP’s benefits either.
Issues surrounding nuclear technology in New Mexico remain ongoing. The WIPP continues to be operational, having received over 12,000 shipments of waste in the past 20 years.35 Talks have even been made about the creation of a second WIPP in the area, for almost all the same reasons as the first.36 Evidently, the facility’s reputation remains more-or-less intact. Despite this, the public has gotten more involved in overseeing the facility. The New Mexico branch of the activist group, NukeWatch, has actively gotten involved in issues surrounding the WIPP. The organization has even been able to impact the writing of the facility’s permits.37
Even with the WIPP’s mostly intact reputation, scrutiny has increased over the past years. This is an important factor to consider, even beyond the WIPP. Only the public can satisfy its own needs. Groups like the government have all sorts of ulterior motives. As such, it’s the responsibility of the people to ensure that they get a fair deal. NukeWatch has continued to keep an eye on the WIPP, even raising concerns over the facility expanding beyond its permit allowances by adding more compartments for storage.38
While the WIPP may not have been removed, the outcome of the conflict was still positive. The WIPP offered economic benefit to Carlsbad, and that benefit remains. The main difference is that people, more aware of the facility’s risks, have made it a point to reduce its risk as much as possible, filling the holes left by the government. This compromise isn’t a bad thing. Not all of these facilities are net negatives. They may offer benefits that lead the communities they affect to accept the risks. In spite of this, it’s important not to wholly disregard the negatives. A site offering benefits is all the more reason to hold it to high standards, ensuring that the positives will be unimpeded by avoidable issues.
Notes:
1Office of Environmental Management, “Fight for Wipp: A History of the Nation’s Deep Geologic Nuclear Waste Repository,” Energy.gov, April 23, 2019, https://www.energy.gov/em/articles/fight-wipp-history-nations-deep-geologic-nuclear-waste-repository.
2NCpedia, “The United States in the 1990s,” Anchor, 1994, https://www.ncpedia.org/anchor/united-states-1990s.
3NCpedia, “The United States in the 1990s,” Anchor, 1994, https://www.ncpedia.org/anchor/united-states-1990s.
4Jennifer Richter, “New Mexico’s Nuclear Enchantment: Local Politics, National Imperatives, and Radioactive Waste Disposal in the Desert,” University of New Mexico Digital Repository (thesis, 2013), https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1035&context=amst_etds, 1.
5Project Gnome, Internet Archive, 1961, https://archive.org/details/ProjectGnome.
6Jennifer Richter, “New Mexico’s Nuclear Enchantment: Local Politics, National Imperatives, and Radioactive Waste Disposal in the Desert,” University of New Mexico Digital Repository (thesis, 2013), https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1035&context=amst_etds, 87.
7Office of Environmental Management, “Fight for Wipp: A History of the Nation’s Deep Geologic Nuclear Waste Repository,” Energy.gov, April 23, 2019, https://www.energy.gov/em/articles/fight-wipp-history-nations-deep-geologic-nuclear-waste-repository.
8Office of Environmental Management, “Fight for Wipp: A History of the Nation’s Deep Geologic Nuclear Waste Repository,” Energy.gov, April 23, 2019, https://www.energy.gov/em/articles/fight-wipp-history-nations-deep-geologic-nuclear-waste-repository.
9Hank C. Jenkins‐Smith et al., “Reversing Nuclear Opposition: Evolving Public Acceptance of a Permanent Nuclear Waste Disposal Facility,” Risk Analysis 31, no. 4 (December 22, 2010): 629–44, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01543.x
10Office of Environmental Management, “Fight for Wipp: A History of the Nation’s Deep Geologic Nuclear Waste Repository,” Energy.gov, April 23, 2019, https://www.energy.gov/em/articles/fight-wipp-history-nations-deep-geologic-nuclear-waste-repository.
11Jennifer Richter, “New Mexico’s Nuclear Enchantment: Local Politics, National Imperatives, and Radioactive Waste Disposal in the Desert,” University of New Mexico Digital Repository (thesis, 2013), https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1035&context=amst_etds, 92.
12Cheryl Fallstead, “Discover the Fascinating History of Carlsbad, New Mexico,” LasCruces.com, October 2, 2023, https://lascruces.com/history-of-carlsbad-new-mexico/.
13Office of Environmental Management, “Fight for Wipp: A History of the Nation’s Deep Geologic Nuclear Waste Repository,” Energy.gov, April 23, 2019, https://www.energy.gov/em/articles/fight-wipp-history-nations-deep-geologic-nuclear-waste-repository.
14James M. Barker and George S. Austin, “Economic Geology of the Carlsbad Potash District, New Mexico,” Carlsbad Region (New Mexico and West Texas), 1993, 283–91, https://doi.org/10.56577/ffc-44.283, 285-286.
15Jennifer Richter, “New Mexico’s Nuclear Enchantment: Local Politics, National Imperatives, and Radioactive Waste Disposal in the Desert,” University of New Mexico Digital Repository (thesis, 2013), https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1035&context=amst_etds, 97.
16Richard Wilson et al., “Public Comment on Certification of Waste Isolation,” Environmental Protection Agency, January 6, 1998, https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-05/documents/epajan6.pdf, 8.
17Jennifer Richter, “New Mexico’s Nuclear Enchantment: Local Politics, National Imperatives, and Radioactive Waste Disposal in the Desert,” University of New Mexico Digital Repository (thesis, 2013), https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1035&context=amst_etds, 97.
18Arthur Burgess III, “The Nuclear Waste Dilemma: An Assessment of Economic Development Opportunities for Carlsbad, New Mexico,” ProQuest, 2011, https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/nuclear-waste-dilemma-assessment-economic/docview/894759188/se-2?accountid=35725, 45.
19Richard Wilson et al., “Public Comment on Certification of Waste Isolation,” Environmental Protection Agency, January 6, 1998, https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-05/documents/epajan6.pdf, 7.
20Hank C. Jenkins‐Smith et al., “Reversing Nuclear Opposition: Evolving Public Acceptance of a Permanent Nuclear Waste Disposal Facility,” Risk Analysis 31, no. 4 (December 22, 2010): 629–44, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01543.x.
21Hank C. Jenkins‐Smith et al., “Reversing Nuclear Opposition: Evolving Public Acceptance of a Permanent Nuclear Waste Disposal Facility,” Risk Analysis 31, no. 4 (December 22, 2010): 629–44, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01543.x.
22Richard Wilson et al., “Public Comment on Certification of Waste Isolation,” Environmental Protection Agency, January 6, 1998, https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-05/documents/epajan6.pdf, 1.
23Phoenix Environmental and EnviroIssues, “Evaluation of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Public Outreach Program during the Certification Process at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico,” Environmental Protection Agency, April 2001, https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-05/documents/wipp_cert_eval_0401_execsum.pdf, 3.
24Office of Environmental Management, “Fight for Wipp: A History of the Nation’s Deep Geologic Nuclear Waste Repository,” Energy.gov, April 23, 2019, https://www.energy.gov/em/articles/fight-wipp-history-nations-deep-geologic-nuclear-waste-repository.
25Jennifer Richter, “New Mexico’s Nuclear Enchantment: Local Politics, National Imperatives, and Radioactive Waste Disposal in the Desert,” University of New Mexico Digital Repository (thesis, 2013), https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1035&context=amst_etds, 200.
26Richard Wilson et al., “Public Comment on Certification of Waste Isolation,” Environmental Protection Agency, January 6, 1998, https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-05/documents/epajan6.pdf, 42.
27Hank C. Jenkins‐Smith et al., “Reversing Nuclear Opposition: Evolving Public Acceptance of a Permanent Nuclear Waste Disposal Facility,” Risk Analysis 31, no. 4 (December 22, 2010): 629–44, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01543.x.
28Office of Environmental Management, “Fight for Wipp: A History of the Nation’s Deep Geologic Nuclear Waste Repository,” Energy.gov, April 23, 2019, https://www.energy.gov/em/articles/fight-wipp-history-nations-deep-geologic-nuclear-waste-repository.
29Office of Environmental Management, “Fight for Wipp: A History of the Nation’s Deep Geologic Nuclear Waste Repository,” Energy.gov, April 23, 2019, https://www.energy.gov/em/articles/fight-wipp-history-nations-deep-geologic-nuclear-waste-repository.
30Google, “Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP),” Google Maps, August 2023, Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP)
31Environmental Protection Agency, “EPA’s Role at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP),” EPA, July 8, 2024, https://www.epa.gov/radiation/epas-role-waste-isolation-pilot-plant-wipp.
32Jeff Tollefson, “US Seeks Waste-Research Revival,” Nature News, March 4, 2014, https://www.nature.com/articles/507015a.
33Environmental Protection Agency, “2014 Radiological Event at the WIPP,” EPA, 2015, https://www.epa.gov/radiation/2014-radiological-event-wipp.
34Government Accountability Office, “Construction Challenges Highlight the Need for DOE to Address Root Causes,” GAO, March 2022, https://www.gao.gov/assets/d22105057.pdf, 28.
35Office of Environmental Management, “Fight for Wipp: A History of the Nation’s Deep Geologic Nuclear Waste Repository,” Energy.gov, April 23, 2019, https://www.energy.gov/em/articles/fight-wipp-history-nations-deep-geologic-nuclear-waste-repository.
36Arthur Burgess III, “The Nuclear Waste Dilemma: An Assessment of Economic Development Opportunities for Carlsbad, New Mexico,” ProQuest, 2011, https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/nuclear-waste-dilemma-assessment-economic/docview/894759188/se-2?accountid=35725, 8.
37Nukewatch Contributors, “Waste Isolation Pilot Plant – Nukewatch Nm,” Nuclear Watch New Mexico, 2024, https://nukewatch.org/issues/wipp/.
38Adrian Hedden, “Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Aims to Expand Underground Facility to Hold Nuclear Waste,” NukeWatch, April 15, 2021, https://nukewatch.org/new-and-updated-item/waste-isolation-pilot-plant-aims-to-expand-underground-facility-to-hold-nuclear-waste/.
Primary Sources:
Source 1
Title: Waste Isolation Pilot Plant aims to expand underground facility to hold nuclear waste
Location: Nuke Watch Website
Description: This is a web page on Nukewatch.org, a website run by a New Mexican advocacy group. This particular page is a record of an article from a Carlsbad newspaper calling out issues with a recently proposed expansion to the facility. This source gives us the perspective of the common person, demonstes an example of the WIPP seemingly sidestepping regulation, and also provides insight into the continuing battle in Carlsbad over the facility.
Source 2
Title: Project Gnome
Link: https://archive.org/details/ProjectGnome
Location: Internet Archive
Description: This is the only source I have currently listed here which is an actual video, hence it has unique utility by providing me with visual aid. In addition, it goes into detail into the Gnome test, the environment surrounding it, and provides historical context. While it may not deal directly with the WIPP, it may still be useful if I use it in my hook to provide some historical context.
Source 3
Title: Evaluation of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Public Outreach Program during the Certification Process at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico
Link: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-05/documents/wipp_cert_eval_0401_execsum.pdf
Location: Environmental Protection Agency Documents
Description: This source is an overview by a consultant team which criticized an outreach program executed by the EPA alongside the initial certification of the WIPP. This document may be useful, as it demonstrates the attempted interaction between government agencies and the general public, while also making clear some of the shortcomings of the government’s strategy. This may provide insight into the way that certain government actions may have contributed to both the positive and negative opinions the common folk held of the facility.
Source 4
Title: Public Comment on Certification of Waste Isolation Pilot Project
Link: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-05/documents/epajan6.pdf
Location: Environmental Protection Agency Digital Document Collection
Description: This is a lengthy transcript of a 1998 hearing on the certification of the WIPP for operation. Many people representing different groups speak here, including people representing the citizen population of Carlsbad. I believe this source will be useful, as it provides a positive view of the WIPP seemingly coming from New Mexico’s populace in addition to the negative one, illustrating disagreement that existed amongst the Carlsbad population.
Source 5
Title: US Seeks waste-research revival
Link: https://www.nature.com/articles/507015a
Location: Nature Journal
Description: This source is a modern news article discussing the WIPP in Carlsbad briefly, while also providing insight into activities similar to those in Carlsbad which occur in other parts of the world. I might be able to use this source towards the end of my paper to try illustrating the broader impact of the situation in New Mexico, as ultimately there are many places in other countries where some of these same issues may also be relevant.
Chosen Source for Analysis: Public Comment on Certification of Waste Isolation Pilot Project
This source is a transcript of an EPA hearing held in 1998, a year before the WIPP began operation, which sought to gather feedback from the public. It offers an in-depth look into the perspectives of both the Carlsbad public, but of representatives of companies investing in the WIPP as well. I believe this source will prove to be immensely useful in shedding light on both the government and common person’s opinions surrounding the WIPP, as well as the hope’s they had for it. My argument using this source would be this: While many of my other sources indicate skepticism of the WIPP, this hearing demonstrates that support for the WIPP did exist amongst the Carlsbad public on the grounds that the facility was a necessary risk which would ultimately help both the nation, and the economic standing of the people living near it.
The first bit of evidence for my argument is the explanation that Jeff Neal, a resident of Carlsbad gave in regard to the WIPP. Neal states that “Carlsbad stepped forward to help the nation, to help the nation solve its low-level transuranic waste problem” (EPA, 3). He asserts this notion that Carlsbad stepping forward was a risk they were taking to help the nation at large, painting a picture of why some residents may have had a more positive view of the WIPP. Looking into the economic side of things, Vicky Black comments that “taxpayers have paid almost $2 billion to get the WIPP to the point it is today, and it’s time to quit spending our taxes marking time, maintaining a ready repository, and time to use our tax dollars to get on with it to help solve a national problem” (EPA, 10). She asserts that the WIPP has already cost taxpayers such as herself a sizable quantity of money, implying that further delaying the WIPP’s operation would cost them even more, reflecting the part of my argument dealing with economics. The last piece of evidence is the statement by Dr. Rip Anderson, a representative of Sandia, which was an organization contracted to evaluate the WIPP’s compliance with EPA regulation. He explains that “the evidence for safe disposal of the contact-handled TRU military waste in bedded salts in Southern New Mexico is overwhelming” (EPA, 38), supporting the EPA’s decision to certify the WIPP on the grounds of it “solving the DOE military nuclear waste problem in a reasonable and cost-effective manner (EPA, 37). Anderson emphasizes both the cost and effectiveness of the facility, echoing both the previous two speakers, and my argument once again.
Secondary Sources:
Source 1:
Citation – Burgess III, Arthur Harry. The Nuclear Waste Dilemma: An Assessment of Economic Development Opportunities for Carlsbad, New Mexico. Las Cruces, New Mexico: New Mexico State University, 2011. https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/nuclear-waste-dilemma-assessment-economic/docview/894759188/se-2?accountid=35725.
Explanation – This source is going to be extremely useful. It is an approved university thesis, meaning it should be a reliable source. It sticks out to me, as it specifically looks at the financial position of Carlsbad, and also illustrates some of the more positive perspectives people had on the WIPP predominantly based on that financial aspect. It also sheds light on the notion shared amongst some people that Carlsbad accepting the risks of the WIPP could enable them to become a key state in the US. I believe this sense of national honor and financial benefit that members of the Carlsbad public attributed to the WIPP is perfectly characteristic of the positive perspective surrounding the facility. As such, I should find use in this source in not only illustrating that mindset, but also comparing it to some of the more negative perspectives floating around Carlsbad. It may also be useful for me to compare it to the government perspective, showing how both these positive angles could have drowned out concerns.
Source 2
Citation – Richter, Jennifer. “New Mexico’s Nuclear Enchantment: Local Politics, National Imperatives, and Radioactive Waste Disposal in the Desert.” Las Cruces, New Mexico: New Mexico State University, 2013. https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/amst_etds/36
URL – https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/amst_etds/36
Explanation – This is another thesis about the situation in Carlsbad. While on the same topic, this thesis refers to a few other issues than the one previously cited, with it tackling more political concepts. While that source discusses the economic and influential perspective of the Carlsbad public, this one more so focuses on the broader political position of this whole situation, even if those other topics do still come up. One important aspect of this thesis is its assertion that the situation in Carlsbad was the result of an overall national effort to paint nuclear technology in an extremely positive light: an important development that would benefit everyone in the long term. This will be useful to my paper, as I can use to not only provide a little bit of additional historical context, but I can also use it to illustrate the government’s tendency to place priority on national interest, in addition to some of the actions they took to forward this national interest at the expense of the individuals living in Carlsbad. I also believe this source and the next one I have listed will compliment each other nicely, as the next source tackles a similar issue, albeit with more of a modern, numerical spin, emphasizing surveys and statistics alongside a less thorough historical analysis.
Source 3
Citation – Jenkins‐Smith, Hank C., Carol L. Silva, Matthew C. Nowlin, and Grant deLozier. “Reversing Nuclear Opposition: Evolving Public Acceptance of a Permanent Nuclear Waste Disposal Facility.” Risk Analysis 31, no. 4 (December 22, 2010): 629–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01543.x.
Explanation – This source is a 2010 study about the general public acceptance of nuclear disposal facilities, with it particularly focusing on the WIPP facility in New Mexico. The study made use of things such as surveys in order to get a reading on the overall citizen perspective directly from their own mouth. I believe this study will prove beneficial, as it will help provide insight into the civilian perspective, albeit from a more distanced vantage point than what my primary sources may provide. It also discusses the political angle surrounding the plant, and some of the factors which may have contributed to or undermined people’s acceptance of it, which may be useful if I look at the factors from this study, and analyze how they developed in relation to the WIPP.
Source 4
Citation – Howard, B. A., M. B. Crawford, D. A. Galson, and M. G. Marietta. “Regulatory Basis for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Performance Assessment.” Reliability Engineering & System Safety 69, no. 1–3 (August 2000): 109–127. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0951832000000284.
URL – https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0951832000000284
Explanation – This source examines the EPA’s role in the development of certain aspects of the WIPP’s regulation. One major thing it analyzes is the WIPP’s performance assessment, and how the EPA’s regulatory influence contributed to the facility’s eventual certification. I believe this source will be useful thanks to the insight it provides into the EPA’s exceedingly major role in the development of the WIPP. The EPA is an important agency which played a major role in calming concerns over the potential environmental impact of the WIPP, so looking into how significant the agency’s influence over the facility actually was will likely be useful to me. In addition, the fact that the EPA was so influential indicates that most of the regulation the WIPP was subjected to happened on the federal level: a fact which may provide important context into the framework that allowed the WIPP to bypass some regulations, as is detailed further in some of my primary sources.
Source 5:
Citation – Killingsworth, M. Jimmie, Jacqueline S. Palmer, and James E. Frost. Nuclear New Mexico: A Historical, Natural, and Virtual Tour. College Station, Texas: Texas A&M University, 2018.
URL – https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=vDBpDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=carlsbad+new+mexico+nuclear&ots=z9VOfEhoaA&sig=PIaVlTrgnb74lXa-hEnWSCB9ljk#v=onepage&q&f=false (This link only leads to a preview of the book, not the whole thing)
Explanation – This source is a relatively recent book talking about nuclear testing in New Mexico at large. While much of this source won’t be particularly useful to me in terms of my main topic, I believe I can get a great deal of information out of it in terms of the history of nuclear testing in New Mexico. This will be important to me as not only will it help me out with historical context, but I will be able to use it in my hook. I want my hook to use the broader history of nuclear testing in New Mexico as a jumping-off point for me to talk about the WIPP, so the information present in this book may be very handy in pulling that part of my paper together.
Image Analysis:
Image 1:
Multiple Representatives of both Carlsbad, and New Mexico state all gathering to speak at the 1999 grand opening of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.
Image 2:
The front of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, as it stands in 2023.
This first image was taken on behalf of the federal government, directly at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant site near Carlsbad, New Mexico. It would have been snapped during the facility’s grand opening on March 26th, 1999. The image depicts U.S. Senator Pete Domenici of New Mexico, Energy Secretary Bill Richardson, EM Carlsbad Field Office Manager Keith Klein, U.S. Representative Joe Skeen of New Mexico, U.S. Senator Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, and Carlsbad Mayor Gary Perkowski all standing together at a podium in front of the WIPP site, seemingly expressing support for the facility’s opening. The second is simply an image of the front of the WIPP, with its identifying sign at the forefront. The image can be found on google maps as the main thumbnail image for the WIPP, and was seemingly taken by Google in August of 2023. My argument using these two images is that the government overstated both national and public interest in an attempt to draw attention away from underlying issues of the WIPP: a mask which would slip in the decades to follow.
The first piece of evidence is the contrast between the American imagery in the 1999 image, and what that imagery is covering up, as revealed by the 2023 image. American flags are everywhere in the first image. Many of the pictured representatives are proudly wearing small American flags on their suits, and there is a larger American flag on the left behind all of them. Though these aren’t the only examples. Even the stage they’re positioned on seems to resemble the American flag, with red and white material being spread both in front of and behind it, in addition to the top of the stage being grey with a possible mild blue tint. This imagery gives the WIPP a noble vibe, which isn’t a surprise. After all, the WIPP was the only transuranic waste disposal site in the country, and was painted by the government as a key facility solving an important environmental issue. In spite of this, this same imagery seems to be masking certain aspects of the image. Looking behind the man standing to the right, a little bit of what appears to be barbed wire fencing is visible. This is more obvious in the 2023 image, with similar fencing appearing on the left. Multiple warning signs are also visible in the 2023 image, which are not visible in its 1999 counterpart. The fencing, in addition to the warning signs, are suspicious. If the WIPP was as safe as the government claimed, then these security methods probably wouldn’t be necessary. While this is clear in the 2023 image, the colorful, America-themed stage and decorations of the 1999 image actively make these details less noticeable. This would seem to suggest that the emphasis on the celebration of national interest wasn’t just an attempt to make the Carlsbad residents feel good. On the contrary, it was also an effort to undermine potentially valid concerns over the WIPP by drawing attention away from the details, instead aiming it towards the proposed positives.
The second evidence to support my argument is the presence of a school bus in the background of the 1999 image, and how that contrasts the complete lack of public presence in the 2023 image. The presence of this school bus, visible on the left of the two men all the way to the right of the 1999 image, suggests that students were brought to the grand opening of the WIPP. This is an unusual development, but it could be significant in providing good optics for the government. It creates the impression of a united community standing up for something that benefits them. The men on the stage are older, representing past generations, and bringing school children to the facility would enable the ‘new’ generation to be represented as well. The presence of these two generations posit the WIPP as a facility being proposed by previous generations in order to secure the future. Of course, it’s unlikely that those school children were bussed to the WIPP’s opening because they wanted to be there. That trip would’ve likely been organized by the government and the school system. This indicates the performative nature of the WIPP’s opening, and of an attempt to make support look more ubiquitous than it really was. Referring back to the 2023 image, the pictured lot is almost entirely empty aside from a truck carrying waste. There are no cars or school buses signifying public support, or any involvement at all. It could be said that this emptier lot is a more accurate representation of the common person’s more distant relationship with the facility, rather than the enthusiastic support the government was attempting to sell.
The last piece of evidence is the abscence of employees in the 2023 image, and how that contrasts the implied national significance depicted in the 1999 image. The 1999 image depicts the WIPP as a huge federal facility, solving the country’s issues and soaked in national pride. The 2023 image tells a very different story. There aren’t any American flags. There isn’t a stage, or even people standing around. The WIPP facility looks completely barren, with no people in sight. There’s only a single truck carrying what appears to be rusted waste barrels, sitting outside the facility with no one tending to it. This image contrasts heavily with its 1999 counterpart, as it would seem to tell a tale of neglect. I would imagine that such an important government facility would have employees everywhere, dealing with any received waste as soon as possible in order to mitigate risk. Instead, the lack of any pictured employees in combination with the rusted barrels creates an image of the WIPP as an afterthought to the people overseeing it. This is a massive contrast, strongly implying that the significance placed on the WIPP by the federal government at the time of it’s opening was disingenuous, not truly reflecting the lukewarm treatment the facility would actually receive in later years.
Ultimately, my argument is relevant to environmental issues on a broader scale because this sort of situation happens in plenty of other contexts. The WIPP, like many other facilities, wasn’t entirely negative. The WIPP did bring new business to Carlsbad, expanding the economy and resulting in the area seeing more investment. Despite this, the government was shady in the way it handled the WIPP, downplaying concerns and sidelining the facility when it was convenient, in spite of initially portraying it with such importance. Just because the facility had its benefits, that doesn’t justify this kind of behavior from the government. There are many other facilities just like this, with their positives completely supplanting the negatives in the eye of the public. It’s important that people be aware of this issue so that the people living in these communities don’t get so swept up in the initial hype that they lose sight of long term concerns.