SUMMARY

Re-defining of Low-Level Radioactive Waste

In the 2020 Amendment to the Order on Consent, DTSC required the DOE to classify, and manage demolition debris from decommissioned buildings and buildings with no history of radiological use, as low-level radioactive waste (LLRW). DTSC forced DOE to dispose of this material out-of-state to a licensed LLRW disposal site.

This agreement effectively re-defined LLRW, implemented California Senate Bill, SB-1970 (2002) that had previously been vetoed by former Governor Gray Davis, and violated California Executive Order D-62-02.

A FOIA request (EMCBC-2022-00149-F) was submitted to the DOE for shipping records of this demolition debris. This records included radioactive waste profiles and NRC Form 540/541 LLRW manifests.

Complaint to the DOE Energy Technology Engineering Center

Review of waste profiles and waste manifests for decommissioned material and debris from buildings with no history of radiological use, reveals that falsified data has been used, in a blatant attempt to mischaracterize non-LLRW as LLRW.

Data on over 400 shipment manifests were systematically inconsistent and transparently illogical. Shipping manifest radionuclide concentrations did not match waste stream profiles. Multiple different containers with significantly different waste weights were assigned identical total and individual radionuclide activities, which is physically impossible. Multiple different containers were assigned identical waste weights and identical total and individual activities, which is physically impossible. Container weighted average concentrations were derived from container total and individual radionuclide activities rather than vice versa. The apparent falsification of data and total lack of any quality control of manifest data by all participants, North Wind, DOE and EnergySolutions is troubling.

A complaint was submitted to all levels of DOE management including ETEC, EM-1, and Secretary Granholm, North Wind management, EnergySolutions management, and DTSC management. All recipients failed to respond to, or dispute, these allegations.

Complaint to the DOE Office of Inspector General 23-0160-C

A complaint was submitted to DOE's Office of Inspector General (OIG Complaint 23-0160-C). DOE closed the investigation at an indeterminate date stating that, "no further action was warranted." The OIG refused to say when the investigation was closed and why the complainant was not notified of the closure, citing unspecified "Privacy Act Restrictions." 

Submission of FOIA Request HQ-2024-01160-F

A FOIA request (HQ-2024-01160-F) was submitted February 8, 2024 for the investigation records. Several responses to this FOIA request were received obfuscating on issues of privacy, but failing to address the specific allegations of the original 23-0160-C complaint or the specifics of the HQ-2024-01160-F FOIA request. The OIG stated that the office of Mr. William White, the previous senior advisor to EM (aka EM-1) had provided a response to the original complaint on July 14, 2023. OIG later asked EM for approval to release that response on or before March 26, 2024.

Complaint to the Utah Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control

A complaint was submitted to the Utah Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control (WMRC) (Complaint DRC-2023-001509). WMRC closed its investigation, stating that EnergySolutions had complied with its license and WAC requirements, however it did not address any of the specific allegations of the complaint, and it was unable to provide any documented evidence that any investgation of the allegattions had been conducted. A Utah GRAMA public records request was submitted, and a response confirmed that no records of the investigation existed. On April 21, 2024, a final appeal to WMRC was made to re-open the investigation of the specific alegations in the complaint. No response has been received as of the revision date of this page. No further attempts to communicate with WMRC has beeen pursued.

Appeal to the DOE Office of Hearings and Appeals

An appeal (FIA-24-0050) was made to the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA). After an exhaustive 2-day review, OHA washed its hands of the affair.

Complaint to the US House Committee on Oversight and Accountability

The House Committee on Oversight and Accountability failed to acknowledge receipt of the complaint.

Letter to Energy Secretary Chris Wright Requesting Support for Complaint

President Trump was included on distribution for this letter.
Neither Secretary Wright nor the White House acknowledged receipt of this letter.

X Message to Elon Musk and DOGE Soliciting Support for Complaint

Neither Elon Musk nor DOGE acknowledged receipt of this X message.

Final Response from DOE's FOIA Office
Response to Complaint from EM

On April 4, 2025, the DOE FOIA Office finally provided the July 2023 EM response to the February 2023 OIG complaint. Although DOE EM did its best to whitewash and side-step the specific allegations of the complaint, several statements in EM's investigation report clearly suggest culpability, and acknowledgement of the complaint's major allegations. See quotations below.

Re-defining LLRW

In response to the allegation of re-defining LLRW, by sending debris from non-contaminated, non-radiological buildings to a LLRW disposal site, EM acknowledged,

• "... the Amendment to the Order on Consent stated, "Debris from buildings 4038, 4057, 4462 and 4463 will be disposed of out of the State of California and out of an abundance of caution, at an authorized mixed low-level radioactive waste disposal facility ...""
  
  
• "When signing these documents, Mr. White was aware of the abundance of caution that was applied in making this decision on disposal of building demolition debris. Given the options available to him, in reaching an agreement with the State of California, Mr. White determined that signing these orders was the best option for the government."
  

Clearly Mr. White, Senior Advisor to EM, was uncomfortable agreeing to the demands of the California DTSC but felt that EM had no option but to sign the two Orders.

Falsification of Data

In response to the allegation of falsification of data by assigning maximum contamination data from one contaminated RMHF facility to all other decommissioned buildings and non-radiological buildings, EM acknowledged,

• "We conservatively used worst case radiological data from the facilities to create the waste profile and NRC 540/541 shipping documentation. This approach was utilized to comply with the 2020 Orders requiring that all demolition debris be disposed of at a licensed low level waste landfill outside of the state of California."

In response to the allegation of falsification of manifest data, including multiple containers with identical waste weights and radionuclide activities, and other multiple containers with identical radionuclide activities but different weights, EM acknowledged,

• "During the live-load and go campaign of buildings 4462 and 4463, pre-set activities were established based on maximum allowable transport weight."

Irresponsible Cost Expenditure

In response to the allegation of wasted costs, DOE EM is silent. Disposal of the subject non-LLRW demolition debris as LLRW out-of-state, obviously costs more than disposing in-state to appropriate permitted Class 1 or 2 disposal facilities, in compliance with California Executive Order D-62-02. In addition, it violates DOE's waste minimization policies.

Cover Up

The original complaint to DOE was made in January 2023, twenty-seven months ago. The subsequent complaint to DOE OIG was made in February 2023. The EM investigation report was completed in July 2023. The "final response" from DOE was emailed to me in April 2025, twenty-one months after the date of EM's investigation report. The simple fact that it has taken this long and extensive communication with DOE to extract a "final response," is proof that DOE management has done its best to cover up this investigation.

Skip to key correspondence.

• DOE FOIA Request EMCBC-2022-00149-F
• Complaint to ETEC and DOE Management
• Complaint to Utah Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control
• Complaint to DOE Office of Inspector General (OIG) 23-0160-C
• DOE FOIA Request HQ-2024-01160-F
• Appeal to DOE Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) FIA-24-0050
• Complaint to House Committee on Oversight and Accountability
• Letter to Secretary Wright and President Trump
• X Message to Elon Musk and DOGE
• Final Response from DOE FOIA Office
• Response to Complaint from EM
• Reply to DOE FOIA Office

• Abstract
• PowerPoint Presentation
• YouTube Video

• Final Response Letter HQ-2024-01160-F, letter dated March 26, 2024
• Memo to Senior Advisor for Office of Environmental Management (aka EM-1), dated March 16, 2023
• 23-0160-C Complaint Form, dated August 3, 2023

• Letter from Anthony Cruz, OIG, Supplemental Response, May 31, 2024
• Supplemental Response Documents, May 31, 2024