By John Stang
The Sierra Club plans to appeal a June 18 order by a licensing board at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that rejected its remaining challenges to Holtec International’s application to build an interim used nuclear fuel storage installation in New Mexico.
This will send the matter back to the full commission, which has already ruled once on the environmental organization’s contentions in licensing, Sierra Club attorney Wally Taylor said by email on June 26.
Taylor said the Sierra Club would appeal the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board’s (ASLB) rejection of four contentions that were remanded by the commission for further consideration, along with dismissal of a final contention filed after the initial proceeding was terminated.
“The Board ruling, and prior rulings, show how difficult the NRC has made it for interested parties to intervene,” Taylor wrote.
The agency is expected in 2021 to rule on Holtec International’s March 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.
Orano and Waste Control Specialists have partnered for a smaller storage project, with a 40,000-metric-ton maximum capacity, just across the state line in West Texas.
The faciliites, if licensed, could give nuclear utilities a place to send their used fuel until the federal government meets its congressional mandate to build a permanent repository for the waste. The Department of Energy is already more than two decades past the Jan. 31, 1998, deadline set in the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act.
The Sierra Club and a number of other organizations petitioned the NRC to intervene in both storage licensing proceedings, which with approval would enable them to argue contentions in adjudicatory hearings. Other petitioners in the Holtec licensing included Beyond Nuclear; the regional oil and gas concerns Fasken Land and Minerals Ltd. and Permian Basin Land and Royalty Owners (PBLRO); and used fuel management specialist NAC International, which is teaming on the Texas project.
The original contentions covered cultural impacts, air quality, groundwater quality, terrorist scenarios, radiation-leak scenarios, transportation concerns, and other matters.
The three-member ALSB rejected all petitions in May 2019. Nearly all the parties appealed to the full commission, which in April upheld most of the earlier decision. However, it did direct the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board to consider six contentions.
Four of those were among the 29 originally filed by the Sierra Club, while the other two were individual contentions from the Sierra Club and Fasken/PBLRO after the end of the initial Atomic Safety and Licensing Board proceeding.
The four longstanding concerns from the Sierra Club broadly involved the hydogeologic characteristics of the land in Lea County on which the facility would be built. Two of the revived Sierra Club contentions asserted Holtec did not adequately study the presence of shallow groundwater and brine (highly salty water) at the site, while the other two said the company did not adequately study the potential for radioactive leaks that could escape from the proposed installation into the surrounding area.
These issues revolve around the environmental report in Holtec’s license application. The commission said the possibility of leaking canisters is not within the scope of the environmental reporting for that application, but these particular contentions also addressed potential matters outside the possibility of leaking canisters, which is why they were returned to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.
The board in June said the Sierra Club’s argued shortcomings in all four contentions did not sufficiently challenge the overall conclusions by Holtec that the hydrogeologic conditions in the region did not pose a significant environmental risk.
It determined the other two contentions from the Sierra Club and Fasken/PBLRO did not satisfy federal requirements for an exemption for late filings.
The Sierra Club’s nullified contention was that Holtec failed to adequately consider potential environmental impacts along transportation routes to New Mexico.
The Fasken and Permian Basin nullified contention was the Holtec did not adequately address mineral rights below its site, which they argued it did not own. The June 18 order allows the oil and gas organizations to present arguments to file an updated version of that contention. The ALSB will hear telephonic oral arguments on reopening that matter on Aug 5. That session will be open to the public.
In separate draft environmental impact statements, NRC staff has preliminarily recommended licensing both planned spent-fuel storage facilities. Holtec hopes to begin receiving used-fuel shipments by 2023.
Beyond Nuclear and a coalition of environmental organizations led by Don’t Waste Michigan have both sued in federal appeals court to overturn the commission’s rulings against their contentions in the Holtec licensing.
