Federal officials said they will work “substantially” over the next two years to remove nuclear waste held at Los Alamos National Laboratory.

The waste will then be disposed of at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant near Carlsbad.

Newport News Nuclear BWXT-Los Alamos (N3B), the contractor hired by the U.S. Department of Energy to manage cleanup at the lab, reported in a May 12 news release that by the end of 2025 more than 12,000 cubic meters of irradiated soil and debris were sent to WIPP for disposal.

The contractor also said more than 15,000 cubic meters of waste were disposed of, including more than 900 cubic meters of legacy transuranic (TRU) waste left over from past nuclear operations during the Cold War and the Manhattan Project.

The refuse is being disposed of via burial at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant where the Energy Department disposes of TRU waste, which is clothing materials, equipment and other debris irradiated during nuclear activities.

The waste is buried at WIPP in a salt deposit about 2,000 feet underground. The salt gradually collapses on the waste, burying the refuse and blocking radiation from escaping.

WIPP officials said during an April 28 town hall that WIPP was about 40% full toward its statutory capacity of 6.2 million cubic feet of waste.

N3B said in its news release that between 2026 and 2028 it will remove waste being stored at the surface at Los Alamos and conduct a safety analysis of the lab’s Area G, the on-site facility where TRU waste is prepared for shipment to WIPP.

Officials said the safety analysis will “further mitigate risks to workers and environment” and improve waste characterization operations – one of the final steps before waste is ready for WIPP.

“We have a lot of work ahead of us, but I know the N3B team will continue to demonstrate the dedication, the focus on safety and the commitment to operational excellence that has been at the core of our success to date,” said Brad Smith, N3B general manager.

Stanley Pyram, manager of the Department of Energy’s Los Alamos Field Office, said removing legacy waste from Los Alamos for disposal at WIPP remained a priority for the federal government.

“We look forward to our continued partnership with N3B on this next phase of the (Los Alamos) legacy cleanup mission and building on the progress achieved,” Pyram said.

Debate over WIPP’s priorities

The announcements came amid concerns expressed by the New Mexico Environment Department – which oversees the federal government’s state permit to operate WIPP – that not enough waste was coming to the repository from within New Mexico.

Those concerns prompted the Environment Department’s April 23 proposal to modify the WIPP permit with a requirement that 55% of shipments of waste to WIPP originate at Los Alamos by next year, and 75% by 2032.

Federal records show that Los Alamos sent 1,824 shipments of waste to WIPP since it opened in 1999, about 12.3% of the total 14,800 shipments received at the site as of May 9.

In addition to waste from the lab in northern New Mexico, WIPP has accepted shipments from 13 federal nuclear facilities around the country including the Idaho National Laboratory, the Savannah River Site in South Carolina and the Hanford Site in Washington.

A public comment period for the state’s proposal is ongoing until June 8, at which time the state and federal government could reach an agreement or hold additional public meetings.

As of Wednesday, May 13, the state had received 344 comments via its online portal, both for and against the proposed requirement.

That included a submission by Mayor Rick Lopez of a resolution passed by the Carlsbad City Council at its May 12 meeting opposing the rule.

Don Hancock, nuclear waste program manager at the Southwest Research and Information Center, a nonprofit government watchdog group in Albuquerque, said the proposed rule followed the original intention for WIPP to clean up New Mexico’s Cold War nuclear waste.

“NMED is proposing to put some more specificity into the permit, and some levers,” he said, noting another clause that allows the state to suspend all shipments if it finds the federal government in violation of the permit.

“The new thing is that the state is putting some additional requirements because DOE didn’t do what it agreed to,” Hancock said.

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

Prosecutors asked for dismissal of an appeal challenging a woman’s conviction of child abuse after her grandson fatally overdosed on fentanyl.

Kelli Smith, 60, last November appealed her 2024 conviction on a count each of child abuse resulting in death and child abuse not resulting in death.

She was found guilty of both charges after a four-day jury trial on Aug. 19, 2024, and sentenced to 15 years in prison by District Judge David Finger.

The charges originated from the overdose death of 12-year-old Brent Sullivan, Smith’s grandson, who police said smoked fentanyl at his grandmother’s house in the 2400 block of Western Way in Carlsbad.

Sullivan was found dead from an overdose of the drug on the morning of Sept. 28, 2021, in a shed on Smith’s property. Prosecutors argued that Kelli Smith and her daughter Alexis Smith, both admitted fentanyl users and traffickers, created an environment where Sullivan and his infant sister had access to the drug that killed him.

Alexis Smith was convicted of the same charges as her mother and sentenced to14 years in prison. Her appeal was denied recently by the New Mexico Court of Appeals.

A brief in chief detailing Kelli Smith’s reasons for appealing her conviction was filed Feb 21 with the Court of Appeals, followed by a response from the New Mexico Department of Justice on April 20 and a reply brief by Smith on May 11.

A trial or additional hearing was not yet set for the case.

Smith argued in her brief that Finger erred in allowing prosecutors to present evidence police obtained from Smith’s property without a warrant. This included burnt tin foil found in the shed where Sullivan was found dead, along with syringes and other drug paraphernalia found in a bedroom.

The brief also challenged testimony by Alexis Smith’s ex-husband Christopher Murray that she obtained fentanyl from her mother, Kelli Smith, and the inclusion of cellphone records the prosecution used to indicate Alexis and Kelli Smith exchanged quantities of fentanyl.

Smith further argued the prosecution failed to properly establish that she was solely responsible for the safety of the children in her home, and that her past addictions to fentanyl indicated she provided the drug to Sullivan.

Smith did not purposefully place the child in a situation that endangered his life, read the brief, arguing that when Sullivan ran away, out of the house and into the shed where he died, he was no longer in his grandmother’s care.

“He was not in her presence at the time he consumed methamphetamine or fentanyl, which resulted in his fatal overdose,” read the brief. “Instead, the state’s case depended upon the vilification of people who use, have used or allow those who use substances to be near children in order to create a belief in the jury that Ms. (Kelli) Smith was at fault for her grandchild using substances.”

In its answer brief, the Department of Justice argued that on the day Sullivan died Smith purposefully allowed children to be in her home where she knew drugs were kept.

Those facts were proven at trial, read the brief, and the jury was not left to speculate on whether Smith’s addiction led to Sullivan’s death.

The brief also argued that there was “overwhelming” evidence of drug use in the home, and that the court’s inclusion of evidence such as the foil obtained immediately after discovering Sullivan’s body but before a warrant was issued was “harmless” to the defense’s case.

The evidence was admissible, the brief stated, due to the “inevitable discovery” doctrine, which allows evidence to be gathered to aid law enforcement response in an emergency – in this case a child overdosing on drugs.

In urging the court to reject Smith’s appeal, the Justice Department argued that the evidence presented by prosecutors was “legally sufficient and proper evidence in support of the convictions. Because Defendant fails to demonstrate any error, this court should affirm her convictions and sentence.”

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

Making New Mexico more “business friendly” was at the center for Doug Turner’s case for the state’s highest office.

Turner, 57, is one of three candidates vying for the Republican Party’s nomination for governor in the June 2 Primary Election.

A Taos resident, Turner owns Albuquerque-based public relations firm Agenda Global and sits on the Taos Ski Valley Village Council.

He’s never held a public office before after running unsuccessfully for the party’s nomination against former-Gov. Susana Martinez in 2010. He served as campaign manager for former-Gov. Gary Johnson.

El Rito Media sat down with Dough Turner to discuss his vision for New Mexico, should he be elected governor.

What are your plans for k-12 education?

“I think we have to really hold schools and teachers accountable for that metric that (students) be able to read at third grade. And quite frankly, if they need to be held back or need to be put in some remedial program at the same time, then we need to do that.”

“We really need to make sure that local school districts are at the table. And that there is connectivity between what (the Public Education Department) does and what the needs of districts are. But I think more importantly, from my perspective, we need more school choice. We need more competition across the public-school enterprise broadly, and that means more charter schools competing with traditional public schools.”

What are your spending priorities?

“I think we don’t fund our roads properly and our infrastructure properly. I’d like to set up a full sort of permanent highway infrastructure trust fund.

“I think we need to invest probably more money in our (Children, Youth and Families Department) infrastructure. We need to hire more people qualified social workers. We need to ensure that they’re paid properly because it’s hard work as we seek to fix that agency.

“And then I think we need to invest some money in how the state interacts with small businesses around New Mexico and how the state creates investment funds for small businesses around New Mexico. I mean, not even the funds that are managed by the State Investment Council are flowing to small businesses in New Mexico. Almost all that money is going elsewhere.”

What is your tax policy for individuals and companies?

“I don’t think it makes financial sense for municipalities to eliminate property taxes. I think it’s being disingenuous for anybody to say that they’re going to get rid of all these taxes on day one, because you would have massive financial shock to towns and counties around the state. What I do believe is that we need to reduce our personal income tax. So, at the very least, we’re competitive to our surrounding states.

“And I think that’s doable over a number of years. I think that’s money that can go back into businesses, investing in people, investing in companies. And then I do also believe that over a number of years, we can get rid of the gross receipts tax. You know, right now it’s on everything.”

How can you reduce poverty and drug abuse?

“It’s part crime, part drug abuse and addiction, part mental health. I think we definitely need to rebuild our mental health infrastructure in the state, because a lot of those people who are homeless have real mental illness and they need appropriate care.

“A big chunk of that is aggressively supporting federal law enforcement and interdiction, whether that be counter cartel activity at the border or other law enforcement to stop the inflow of a lot of these drugs, fentanyl being the primary drug.

“I think we have to have facilities that provide a full wraparound coverage. Meaning if they have addiction, that gets addressed. If they have mental health, that gets addressed. That’s a tough thing to do because we tend to just push these problems off to the municipality and appropriate money to let them figure it out. It doesn’t always work.”

What can New Mexico do to be more attractive to business?

“It’s all of the above. Companies and capital. Investments tend to go where they’re treated well. We need to improve how our economic development tools and outreach works for all size companies.

“We need to deal with crime. We have this revolving door, cashless bail, that puts criminals back out on the street long before they are adjudicated. They (companies) have to have schools that they can send their kids to and feel like they’re getting the education that their kids deserve. They want their kids to be able to go out and play and not get shot. I mean, this stuff happens all the time.”

What are your plans for rural health care?

“Rural health care is largely a function of the availability of providers. And being able to have providers within proximity of communities. If they’re not local and not wanting to return to their communities, we need another incentive. So, one of those might be offsetting medical expenses, medical bills or education.

“We have to deal with our tort laws. The medical malpractice bill that recently passed, I think is a good step, but I don’t think it’s enough. I think we need to have medical malpractice insurance costs be competitive with our surrounding states. And it’s definitely not, not even after this bill. Regarding Medicaid, I think we need to ensure that Medicaid goes to people who need it and support those programs.

How can environmental concerns be addressed?

“Every part of the state has a different issue, whether you’re in agriculture or oil and gas or mining. But I also think we have to have transparency, and we have to have regulatory certainty.

“We need to pay far more attention to our water resources. I’ve been having conversations with people about cloud seeding and we don’t do it. But Wyoming does it, Arizona does it, so why don’t we do it?

“We have to make sure that we balance development in the name of economic growth with the resources that we have and that we are not placing increased stresses on our environment or our resources. We are not ignoring existing needs of other industries and we’re not ignoring needs of municipalities.”