A panel of specialists at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has rejected a petition from a pair of Texas-based oil and gas interests to reopen its case for a hearing in the licensing of Holtec International’s planned spent-fuel storage facility in New Mexico.
The three-member Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) essentially decided that Fasken Land and Minerals Ltd. and the Permian Basin Land and Royalty Owners (PBLRO) did not raise any new issues in a timely manner — echoing arguments made against the petition by Holtec and NRC staff.
The board issued its decision on Sept. 3, about a month after it heard oral arguments in the matter. The ruling was posted to the NRC website the next day.
Fasken/PBLRO could appeal this decision to the commission, as it did previously in the proceeding. “Both Fasken and the Permian Basin Coalition of Land and Royalty Owners and Operators, are weighing their next move,” Fasken attorney Monica Perales said by email Tuesday.
The federal regulator is expected in 2021 to rule on Holtec’s 2017 application for a 40-year license to build and operate a storage facility for up to 8,680 metric tons of spent fuel from U.S. nuclear power plants. The New Jersey-based energy technology company could ultimately receive federal authorization to hold in excess of 100,000 metric tons of used fuel for up to 120 years.
Fasken and companies represented by the PBLRO drill for oil and natural gas in the Permian Basin. which covers the western half of Texas and a small portion reaching into New Mexico’s Lea and Eddy counties, whose governments and economic interests support Holtec’s proposed facility between the cities of Hobbs and Carlsbad. The Fasken/PBLRO group joined the Sierra Club, Beyond Nuclear, and a handful of other organizations in petitioning for intervention in the licensing proceeding, which would have enabled them to argue contentions about the project.
The same Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in May 2019 rejected all petitions. Nearly all of the groups appealed that decision to the commission, which last April directed the board to reconsider four contentions from the Sierra Club and two late-filed contentions from the environmental organization and Fasken/PBLRO. The board in June dismissed the Sierra Club’s contentions, along with the Fasken/PBLRO contention “as originally proffered.”
