lucrative contracts from DOE, and for taxpayers who would no longer have to pay large damages for breaches of contract. Even if DOE is unable to contract with the private CISFs, utilities could ship SNF to the private CISFs and retain ownership. They would still be able to collect damages, but at a lower amount because it would be cheaper to secure and operate one or two larger sites than dozens of smaller storage sites. The NRC is currently considering applications for two proposed CISFs (MRMTC 2020a). First, Holtec International and the Eddy-Lea Energy Alliance (ELEA) have applied to build their HI-STORE CISF in southeastern NewMexico, about 35 miles from Carlsbad. According to Holtec’s website, the site would be “located on a small and isolated portion of a thousand acres of undeveloped ELEA land that is geographically stable, with a dry and arid climate that is ideal for the underground dry fuel storage system” (Holtec 2020). The website goes on to tout southeastern NewMexico’s existing nuclear projects, including theWIPP facility and the URENCO enrichment facility, as further evidence of the area’s suitability for a CISF. Holtec applied for a specific license from the NRC on March 31, 2017. The company is seeking a license to store 8,680 metric tons of uranium (MTU) initially and operate the site for 40 years, with an option to renew— twice — for 40-year periods (NRC 2019a, p. A-2). The application goes on to say the SNF would be shipped almost entirely by rail and transferred from the main railroad to the facility via a rail spur on land owned by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. In June 2019, the NRC released the “Summary Report: The Holtec Environmental Impact Statement Scoping Period.” As required by NEPA, these reports allow the public, interested organizations, license applicants, and state, local, federal, and tribal government agencies to comment on issues and recommend what the final environmental impact statement’s (EIS) scope should be. For this report, 3,900 unique comments were gathered via mail, email, online submission, a webinar, and five in-person meetings throughout New Mexico. Comments relating to transportation generally focused on three themes: 1. Concerns about accidents during transportation and safety of those living near transportation routes; 2. Volume of transportation required for centralized interim storage compared to disposal; and 3. Concern about rights of way through Tribal lands during transportation” (NRC 2019a, p. A-6). As of August 2020, the draft EIS had been released and the COVID-19 pandemic had extended the public comment period until at least September 22, 2020. The second proposed CISF is a joint venture by Orano USA and Waste Control Specialists (WCS), branded as Interim Storage Partners (ISP). The NRC received ISP’s application on April 28, 2016. 9
It proposes adding this SNF CISF toWCS’s already existing low-level radioactive waste (LLW) storage site in Andrews County, Texas. The application involves eight phases in which the 5,000 MTU of capacity is added in each phase up to a total possible storage of 40,000 MTU (NRC 2019b, p. A-1). Like Holtec’s application, ISP’s initial application requests a license period of 40 years and proposes shipping SNF primarily or entirely via rail. Unlike Holtec’s application, ISP’s does not explicitly say it will request a renewal after the initial 40 years. In October 2019, the NRC released its “Summary Report: The ISP CISF Environmental Impact Statement Public Scoping Period.” For this report, public comments were gathered via two webinars, two meetings in Hobbs, New Mexico, and Andrews, Texas, and many written comments. Transportation concerns expressed by the public were similar to those in the Holtec report. In response, the scoping summary stated that “The EIS will describe the expected physical parameters of SNF shipments (including weights, capacities, packaging) and describe applicable regulations and the roles and responsibilities for identifying and reviewing transportation routes and ensuring the infrastructure along transportation routes is acceptable for the safe transportation of SNF” (NRC 2019b, p. B-20). ISP’s draft EIS was released on May 8, 2020, and the public will have until September 4, 2020, to comment. There is a third private enterprise that sees a possible financial gain in the world of SNF and HLW disposal and/or storage. Deep Isolation is a startup company that seeks to place nuclear waste in deep boreholes. The company would use its demonstrated combination of vertical and horizontal drilling methods to dispose of SNF and HLW in a retrievable manner. The technology could allow the development of several permanent repositories, as opposed to one interim storage facility. The NWPA, however, only allows for SNF and HLW to be disposed of in a deep-mined repository. Therefore, legislative changes must be made before Deep Isolation could seek an NRC license or any contracts with DOE (see Deep Borehole Disposal for more information). The history of SNF and HLW disposal in the United States is long and filled with stops and starts that have plagued government programs for decades. Now, private industry wants to take matters into their own hands. Many people have jumped at the possibility of finally getting a short-term solution, at the very least. However, there are reasons to pause and consider the implications of an industry-led SNF transportation and storage program— namely, consent-based siting (CBS), the timeframe, and regulations. As noted earlier, the failure to consider community consent in siting facilities has been the downfall of many government-led attempts to develop storage and disposal facilities. So, is private industry pursuing CBS? In Holtec’s case, “The bid has support from a group of local officials, drawn by the promise of tax revenues, high-paying jobs and a stable source of income” (Rott 2019). Holtec’s website also highlights the support of the New
9 Despite applying for an NRC license before Holtec, ISP’s application is discussed second in this archive because ISP requested the review of their application be suspended on April 18, 2017. At the time, WCS needed to focus their financial resources on defending an antitrust lawsuit regarding their sale to Energy Solutions (Baltzer 2017). Even though this sale was blocked by the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware later in 2017, the application review process was resumed on August 21, 2018 (Nguyen 2018).
45
Made with FlippingBook Annual report