Two very different groups have called on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to dismiss separate license applications for storage of spent nuclear reactor fuel in Texas and New Mexico, arguing the proceedings constitute a violation of federal law.
This is the most aggressive action yet to block the projects in their early stages, but a larger number of organizations are also filing petitions to formally intervene in the NRC adjudication of the applications, arguing both for and against the facilities.
The two dismissal motions were filed on Sept. 14 by the nongovernmental antinuclear group Beyond Nuclear and jointly by energy firm Fasken Land and Minerals Ltd. and the Permian Basin Land and Royalty Owners. While the filings are distinct, their primary argument is the same: Establishing the temporary storage facilities will make the Department of Energy responsible for transport and storage of the spent fuel, but that is expressly forbidden in this scenario by the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act.
“Under the NWPA, the DOE is precluded from taking title to spent fuel unless and until a permanent repository has opened,” Beyond Nuclear said in its motion.
The 1982 legislation directed DOE to begin accepting used reactor fuel from commercial nuclear plants for disposal by Jan. 31, 1998, and was amended five years later to designate Yucca Mountain in Nevada as the repository site. The agency has not yet moved the spent fuel and Yucca Mountain remains unbuilt. Interim storage in a limited number of locations has been offered as a means for the Energy Department to meet its legal mandate until it can build the repository.
New Jersey-based energy technology specialist Holtec International has applied for a 40-year-license to build and operate a facility in southeastern New Mexico that ultimately could hold more than 170,000 metric tons of spent fuel. Just across the state border, an Orano-Waste Control Specialists partnership wants 40-year approval to store up to 40,000 metric tons of the radioactive waste in West Texas.
“Movants contend the [consolidated interim storage facility] applicants should be required to show cause why their applications do not constitute a violation of the NWPA since no permanent repository for spent nuclear fuel exists in the United States,” according to the Fasken-Permian Basin Land and Royalty Owners filing.
Staff at the NRC have 10 days to prepare a response to the motions, with the commission itself issuing final rulings.
In making the case for standing to file the petition, Fasken said it operates oil and gas assets about 2 miles from Holtec’s planned site in Lea County, between the cities of Hobbs and Carlsbad. Meanwhile, the Permian Basin Land and Royalty Owners was formed to represent oil and gas operators and royalty owners in the region straddling the two states who believe their financial interests could be harmed by local spent fuel storage. The group has 35 members and expects to grow, Monica Perales, staff attorney for Fasken Oil and Ranch Ltd., told RadWaste Monitor.
Their joint petition cites the potential for the release of radiation from the facilities that could end energy production in the region, along with the risk of falling property values if storage operations begin. The Beyond Nuclear petition also emphasizes the possibility of accidents during shipment and storage of the spent fuel, listing a number of individuals who live near possible transport routes and the storage properties.
One individual, D.K. Boyd, is mentioned in both petitions as living and traveling near the Texas site.
“From the perspective of the Coalition, the applicant has not obtained informed consent from the affected parties and the citizenry,” Perales wrote in a response to questions. “Instead, subjective, non-expert local officials, claiming to represent their constituents, tout consent for a rubberstamped application even before reviewing operating, safety and technical reports that are still evolving or are unfinished.”
Beyond Nuclear and a number of other entities also met the NRC’s Sept. 14 deadline to file petitions for hearings and to intervene in the regulator’s license adjudication of the Holtec application. Stakeholders have until Oct. 29 to file corresponding petitions on the Orano-Waste Control Specialists application, which is managed by their Interim Storage Partners joint venture.
Approval to intervene would give the organizations a formal role in the adjudication, making their case beyond just submitting comments.
“The requests for hearings and petitions for leave to intervene are part of the NRC licensing process,” Joy Russell, Holtec vice president for corporate business development, said by email Tuesday. “Holtec International is preparing a proper response to the raised contentions and will not publicly comment on the various groups or their reasons for their requests.”
Interim Storage Partners this week did not comment on the intervention requests. It did not appear as of Friday that any organization had filed to intervene or request a hearing on its license application, a refreshed version of the request Waste Control Specialists submitted on its own in 2016.
The NRC’s Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will decide whether petitioners for intervention have filed admissionable contentions and have proven standing in the matter, an agency spokesman said this week. The process generally involves oral arguments on the petition, after which the board decides whether to grant a formal hearing.
Applicants on the Holtec application primarily fall into two groups: environmental and anti-nuclear organizations that want to block the storage projects based on the perceived danger posed by transport and storage of the spent fuel; and local communities eyeing jobs and capital investments in the region.
In the former group, opposing the Holtec license: the Sierra Club, the consumer group Public Citizen, Don’t Waste Michigan, the Nuclear Energy Information Service, and others.
“Radioactive waste would be transported to the CIS site by rail or truck from various reactor sites around the country,” the Sierra Club said in its petition. “The transportation and storage of the radioactive waste as proposed by Holtec 1 creates risks and adverse impacts that form a basis for denying the license to construct and operate the facility.”
Lea and Eddy counties in New Mexico, along with Carlsbad and Hobbs, petitioned to participate in the proceeding as local government bodies. The four jurisdictions are the members of the Eddy-Lea Energy Alliance (ELEA), which purchased the land on which the Holtec facility would sit. The Alliance as an entity has also filed a petition for participation.
In an Aug. 22 resolution, ELEA said the Holtec project is expected to bring 200 jobs and $2.4 billion in capital investments to the region. It also noted that southeastern New Mexico is already home to two nuclear facilities: the Department of Energy’s Waste Isolation Pilot Plant and URENCO USA’s uranium enrichment facility.
“[T]he dry, remote southeastern corner of New Mexico is ideal for such temporary storage,” the resolution says. “A pre-existing scientific and nuclear operations workforce exists in the area, and a community that is open-minded and supportive of safe, secure nuclear projects.”
Holtec and its backers have emphasized both the safety of the storage casks and the economic benefits from the project, noting the thousands of domestic spent fuel transports that have gone off without a hitch. On its website, Holtec says its “canisters are designed, qualified, and tested to survive and prevent the release of radioactive material under the most adverse accident scenarios postulated by NRC regulations for both storage and transportation.”
One seeming outlier among this group of petitioners is NAC International, a manufacturer of spent fuel storage casks that has joined the Interim Storage Partners team. The Georgia-based company was clear about its affiliation in its petition for intervention and a hearing, in which it questioned Holtec’s claim that its site could hold all fuel storage containers made by any manufacturer – such as NAC.
