Beyond Nuclear - Centralized Storage

The other side hit back against Beyond Nuclear on Oct. 29th.

In response to Beyond Nuclear's motions to dismiss both the Holtec International/Eddy-Lea Energy Alliance (ELEA) and the Waste Control Specialists/Interim Storage Partners (WCS/ISP) centralized interim storage facility (CISF) proposals, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has rejected them. Thus, it's off to the races on both licensing proceedings. The NRC has ordered the establishment of Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panels (ASLBPs), which will begin to issue orders, set schedules, and publish rulings.

NRC staff can be fully expected to advocate strongly in favor of approving the CISF licenses. ASLBPs, and the NRC Commissioners themselves, can be expected, eventually, in the end, to rubber-stamp the CISF licenses. Only then, will Beyond Nuclear have exhausted all administrative remedies, enabling us to challenge such license approvals in federal court.

Beyond Nuclear's motions to dismiss focused on the lack of legal authority for NRC to even be considering license applications from Holtec and ISP, which are predicated on the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) taking title to, and liability for, commercial irradiated nuclear fuel at CISFs. Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as Amended, such title transfer (onto the backs of federal taxpayers, forevermore) can only take place at an open and operating permanent repository. In essense, Holtec and ISP (looking to DOE to pay all costs for the CISFs, including a large profit margin), have based their proposals on the illegal acceleration of the transfer of title, and liability, for irradiated nuclear fuel, onto DOE (that is, taxpayers).

Early in the administration of President Barack Obama, the Yucca Mountain, NV repository was abandoned, wisely. Several years ago, DOE predicted that a repository (at an unnamed location) could not open in the U.S. before 2048.

Holtec/ELEA is targeting southeastern New Mexico for a 173,600 metric ton irradiated nuclear fuel CISF. WCS/ISP is targeting Andrews County, West Texas with a 40,000 metric ton CISF. The two proposed facilities are but 40 miles apart, across the TX/NM border. If approved, built, and operated to capacity, the two CISFs would -- at 213,600 metric tons -- dwarf the proposed Yucca Mountain, Nevada permanent repository for highly radioactive waste (currently limited by law to 70,000 metric tons, at least until a second repository is opened and operating in another state). This would correspondingly result in a significant increase in the number of shipments -- by road, rail, and/or waterway -- of irradiated nuclear fuel through most states, bound for the Southwest.

Also on Oct. 29, both NRC staff, as well as WCS/ISP, filed responses to Beyond Nuclear's hearing request and petition to intervene in the TX CISF proceeding.

The NRC staff acknowledged Beyond Nuclear has established legal standing, as well as presented a contention worthy of a hearing on the merits -- a rare admission for NRC staff.

However, WCS/ISP has challenged Beyond Nuclear's legal standing to even bring such a request and petition in opposition to the proposal, and has attacked the legal and technical merits of Beyond Nuclear's contentions. WCS/ISP has argumed the ASLB should block Beyond Nuclear's intervention, and deny us a hearing.

Holtec/ELEA, and NRC staff, have filed similar legal challenges to Beyond Nuclear's intervention in the New Mexico proceeding, as well. However, it is significant to point out that NRC staff recognized that Beyond Nuclear has established and proven legal standing in that proceeding, as well as the worthiness of our contention for a hearing on the merits.

Beyond Nuclear now has seven days to reply to the NRC staff's and WCS/ISP filings of Oct. 29.

Beyond Nuclear's legal counsel in both the Holtec and ISP CISF proceedings are Diane Curran of Washington, D.C., as well as Mindy Goldstein and Caroline Reiser of Emory University Turner Environmental Law Clinic in Atlanta, GA.