Holtec/ELEA CISF oral argument pre-hearings to be held in Albuquerque, Jan. 23-24

The three-administrative law judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel (ASLBP) appointed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in the Holtec International/Eddy-Lea Energy Alliance irradiated nuclear fuel centralized interim storage facility (CISF) license application proceeding has ordered that oral argument pre-hearings will be held in Albuquerque, New Mexico, beginning on Wed., Jan. 23, and continuing on Thurs., Jan. 24 if needed. The pre-hearings are open to the public, so please spread the word to anyone you know in northern New Mexico -- attendance by concerned citizens in support of our opposition to this CISF would be very valuable!

The pre-hearings will address "standing and contention admissibility." A broad coalition has filed legal interventions: Beyond Nuclear (represented by legal counsel Diane Curran and Mindy Goldstein); Sierra Club (represented by legal counsel Wally Taylor); Aliance for Environmental Strategies (represented by legal counsel Nancy Simmons); and a seven-group environmental coalition, spanning coast to coast (represented by legal counsel Terry Lodge).

Update on January 10, 2019 by admin

See the ASLB order (link immediately below), announcing the start time of 9am MST on Wed., Jan. 23, as well as the location. The oral argument pre-hearings will continue on Thurs., Jan. 24 (again, starting at 9am MST), as needed.

The NRC ASLB has issued its order. The venue for the Holtec/ELEA CISF licensing oral argument pre-hearings has been changed. Here is the new venue:

State Bar of New Mexico, 5121 Masthead Street NE, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

The order in which the various legal teams representing opponents to the CISF will be heard has also been changed.

The ASLB has also listed its areas of particular questioning to be focused upon during the course of the Jan. 23-24 hearings.

Here is that particular excerpt from the Jan. 10, 2019 ASLB Order:

1. Does Holtec agree that, absent new legislation, the Department of Energy could not lawfully assume ownership of the nuclear waste in the proposed interim storage facility?

2. If Holtec does not agree, have Beyond Nuclear and the Sierra Club raised an admissible legal issue contention concerning this issue?

3. Treating Fasken’s motion to dismiss as a hearing petition, has Fasken effectively adopted Beyond Nuclear’s sole contention?

4. If so, and Fasken having proffered no other contention of its own, must its hearing petition be dismissed?

5. To what extent must subsurface conditions be characterized in the Environmental Report if the proposed storage facility would not affect them?

6. To what extent must subsurface characteristics be characterized by the safety analysis if these subsurface characteristics would not affect the safety of the storage facility?

7. Because Holtec asserts high burnup fuel will always be enclosed within the HISTORE canister, and the HI-STORE system has been certified by the NRC for storage and transportation of high burnup fuel, to what extent must high burnup fuel be specifically addressed in the application?

8. Standing premised on proximity to potential transportation routes.

9. Standing premised on proximity to the proposed facility.

10. Adequacy of the application with respect to design alternatives analysis and the need for disclosure of proprietary design information in such an analysis.

11. Adequacy of the application with respect to geologic risks and geologic
characterization of the proposed site.

12. Why would a hearing opportunity associated with license amendments be less
satisfactory to NAC than a hearing in the present proceeding?

13. Safe storage and transportation implications of the UMAX storage system’s
operating beyond its current design and service life, including the effects of high burnup fuel.

14. Risks associated with onsite storage compared with offsite storage, including
transportation risks and the potential effects of high burnup fuel.

[Please note that this Jan. 10, 2019 ASLB Order supercedes and replaces the one issued on Dec. 14, 2018.]

Environmental coalition files motion to disquality ASLB panel in WCS/ISP CISF proceeding

Sierra Club (represented by legal counsel Wally Taylor), and a seven-group environmental coalition (represented by legal counsel Terry Lodge), have filed a "Motion...for Disqualification of Atomic Safety and Licensing Board" in the Waste Control Specialists/Interim Storage Partners license application proceeding.

If approved by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, WCS/ISP would transport to, and store at, the western Texas centralized interim storage facility (CISF) on the New Mexico border, 40,000 metric tons of commercial irradiated nuclear fuel. That is just under half what exists in the U.S. today.

Beyond Nuclear has also legally intervened against the WCS/ISP, TX CISF.

Belen, NM passes resolution against CISFs

The city of Belen, New Mexico is the latest to pass a resolution opposing the two irradiated nuclear fuel centralized interim storage facilities (CISFs) targeted at its region of the country, namely the Holtec International/Eddy-Lea Energy Alliance in southeastern New Mexico, and the Waste Control Specialists/Interim Storage Partners in western Texas. (See more about other resolutions passed elsewhere in NM and TX, and what you canc do to pass a resolution where you live!)

The Valencia County, NM News-Bulletin has reported on this story.

Together, the two CISFs propose to store 173,600 metric tons, and 40,000 metric tons, of irradiated nuclear fuel, respectively.

Altogether, that's 213,600 Metric Tons of commercial irradiated nuclear fuel. That's 3.4 times the amount of commercial irradiated nuclear fuel (63,000 metric tons) targeted for burial at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.

Belen's resolution includes its concerns about the high risks of transport of high-level radioactive waste through its area.

The State of Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects has documented that the 70,000 metric tons of highly radioactive waste targeted for burial at Yucca Mountain (the additional 7,000 metric tons would be U.S. Department of Energy irradiated nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste) would require more than 12,000 truck, train, and barge shipments, through many major cities in 44 states. (See these road and rail route maps, as well as shipment numbers, below; see potential barge routes here).

Thus, Belen and the rest of NM would be put at risk from more than three times the road, rail, and waterway shipments bound for NV under the Yucca dump scheme.

[Road and rail routes bound for Yucca Mountain, NV, as well as shipment numbers:

• Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects - Cities Potentially Affected by Shipments to Yucca Mountain (pdf-2.45M)
• Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects - States Potentially Affected by Shipments to Yucca Mountain, Nevada - Fred Dilger, PhD
• Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects - Congressional Districts Potentially Affected by Shipments to Yucca Mountain, Nevada ]

Radioactive Waste Is Coming through Your Town -- Unless YOU Help Stop It!

Please submit public comments to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) before its Nov. 19th deadline, expressing opposition to the centralized interim storage facility targeted at Andrews County, West Texas by WCS/ISP (Waste Control Specialists/Interim Storage Partners). Orana (formerly Areva, formerly Cogema) of France is the lead partner. Web forms you can use as is, or edit, as well as sample comments you can use to prepare your own -- along with instructions on how to submit them -- are posted at Beyond Nuclear's website.

When it comes to high-level radioactive waste transportation risks, we all live in West Texas!

Update on November 19, 2018 by admin

See Public Citizen and SEED Coalition's comments (69 pages) RE: Docket # NRC-2016-0231 Waste Control Specialists LLC’s Consolidated Interim Spent Fuel Storage Facility Project, here.

See also "Can You Trust the Federal Government to Protet Your Community Against Contamination from Radioactive Waste?"

Update on November 20, 2018 by admin

By the Nov. 19th deadline, a grand total of 40,000+ public comments were submitted re: WCS/ISP CISF (Texas) environmental scoping. This is a new record for this subject matter.

By the July 30th U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission deadline, 30,000+ public comments were submitted re: the Holtec International/Eddy-Lea Energy Alliance CISF in NM.

The two CISFs are located but 40 miles apart across the TX/NM border.

Thus, more than 70,000 comments have been submitted to NRC, in opposition to the twin schemes.

The WCS/ISP CISF, Texas total includes all comments submitted since the environmental scoping public comment period first began, in early 2017.

The Most Dangerous and Deadly Radioactive Waste Could Come Through Major Texas Cities and Be Dumped on West Texas

Conservative Midland City Council Joins Growing List of Opponents, 14 License Application Failures Detailed in Legal Filings

See SEED/Public Citizen press release, here.