Fasken Land and Minerals, Ltd. didn’t prove that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Atomic Safety and Licensing Board erred when it rejected the company’s complaint about a proposed interim storage facility, so the NRC should let the rejection stick, commission staff said this week.
Monday’s NRC staff letter is just the latest in a months-long saga of opposition to Waste Control Specialists’ (WCS) proposed storage site for spent nuclear fuel. The site’s licensing has been the target of a growing list of objections from environmental groups and other stakeholders.
Here’s where things stand this week, and what’s at stake for commercial nuclear waste storage:
Three separate stakeholder groups, Beyond Nuclear, Don’t Waste Michigan, and the Sierra Club, filed petitions in the D.C. circuit court of appeals after the NRC denied each of their objections to the proposed Andrews County, Texas site’s licensing. A judge agreed earlier this month review the group’s combined complaint only after the commission makes a decision about Fasken’s appeal.
If the agency decides to toss the minerals company’s appeal, Fasken may want to file its own complaint in the D.C. circuit. That was the crux of the commission’s argument when on March 3 it asked to consolidate the other three proceedings and pause action in the court in anticipation that a fourth party would join the mix.
At deadline Friday, the NRC hadn’t ruled on Fasken’s appeal. Once the agency does, all parties will have 30 days to re-open proceedings, according to the court docket.
At the same time, NRC is drafting an environmental impact review statement for WCS’s proposed site — a prerequisite for licensing. This process won’t be done until the summer, the commission has said.
