ML20268C296

Comment (4478) E-mail Regarding Holtec-CISF Draft EIS

ML20268C296
Person / Time
Site:	HI-STORE
Issue date:	09/22/2020
From:	Public Commenter Public Commenter
To:	NRC/NMSS/DREFS
NRC/NMSS/DREFS
References
85FR16150
Download: ML20268C296 (9)

Text

From:

Bada, Cheryl, EMNRD <cheryl.bada@state.nm.us>

Sent:

Tuesday, September 22, 2020 4:58 PM To:

Holtec-CISFEIS Resource

Subject:

[External_Sender] Docket ID NRC-2018-0052 New Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department Comments on Holtec-CISFEIS Attachments:

EMNRD Comments on Holtec CISFEIS Docket ID NRC-2018-0052.pdf Please find attached the New Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Departments comments on the Holtec CISFEIS, Docket ID NRC-2018-0052.

Cheryl L. Bada Deputy General Counsel Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department 1220 S. St. Francis Dr.

Santa Fe, NM 87505 (505) 660-0738 cheryl.bada@state.nm.us

Federal Register Notice:

85FR16150 Comment Number:

4478 Mail Envelope Properties (afc2e3b64a23498b98b09b2b80aa5239)

Subject:

[External_Sender] Docket ID NRC-2018-0052 New Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department Comments on Holtec-CISFEIS Sent Date:

9/22/2020 4:57:34 PM Received Date:

9/22/2020 4:57:50 PM From:

Bada, Cheryl, EMNRD Created By:

cheryl.bada@state.nm.us Recipients:

Post Office:

MBXCAS004.nmes.lcl Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 337 9/22/2020 4:57:50 PM EMNRD Comments on Holtec CISFEIS Docket ID NRC-2018-0052.pdf 323463 Options Priority:

Standard Return Notification:

No Reply Requested:

No Sensitivity:

Normal Expiration Date:

Recipients Received:

State of New Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department 1220 South St. Francis Drive fSanta Fe, New Mexico 87505 Phone (505) 476-3200 f Fax (505) 476-3220 fwww.emnrd.state.nm.us Office of the Secretary Michelle Lujan Grisham Governor Sarah Cottrell Propst Cabinet Secretary Todd E. Leahy, JD, PhD Deputy Cabinet Secretary September 22, 2020 John Tappert, Director Division of Rulemaking, Environmental and Financial Support U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop T4-B72 11545 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852 Submitted by email to: Holtec-CISFEIS@nrc.gov RE: Docket ID NRC-2018-0052 Director Tappert

On behalf of the New Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department (EMNRD),

attached please find our comments on the March 2020 draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Holtec International License Application for a Consolidated Interim Storage Facility for Spent Nuclear Fuel and High Level Waste in Lea County, New Mexico.

EMNRD finds the technical analysis in the draft EIS inadequate. The draft EIS does not comply with the requirements of Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act as it fails to adequately describe the geological site, to conduct a thorough evaluation because of numerous technical deficiencies, to include all applicable state regulatory oversite and environmental impact controls, and to adequately assess environmental justice concerns. EMNRD strongly opposes the recommended action of approving the Holtec CISF License and instead supports the No Action Alternative.

In addition, the draft EIS fails to consider impacts to oil and gas development in the area. In New Mexico, Nearly 40% of all state revenue in New Mexico is generated directly from oil and gas production taxes. According to the Permian Basin Petroleum Association, the proposed site would threaten executed contracts with the United States for operators who have invested in leasing the area for mineral exploration and development for oil and gas production.

EMNRD also supports the comments by other New Mexico state agencies including the New Mexico Environment Department.

Sincerely, Sarah Cottrell Propst

September 22, 2020 Page 2 New Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department (EMNRD) Comments Regarding the March 2020 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Holtec International License Application for a Consolidated Interim Storage Facility for Spent Nuclear Fuel and High Level Waste in Lea County, New Mexico Docket ID NRC-2018-0052 The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) prepared a draft environmental impact statement (EIS) as part of its environmental review of the Holtec International (Holtec) license application to construct and operate a consolidated interim storage facility (CISF) for spent nuclear fuel (SNF) and Greater-Than-Class C waste, along with a small quantity of mixed oxide fuel. The proposed CISF would be constructed in southeast New Mexico at a site located approximately halfway between the cities of Carlsbad and Hobbs, New Mexico.

EMNRD finds the technical analysis in the draft EIS inadequate. The draft EIS does not comply with the requirements of Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act as it fails to adequately describe the geological site, to conduct a thorough evaluation because of numerous technical deficiencies, to include all applicable state regulatory oversite and environmental impact controls, and to adequately assess environmental justice concerns. EMNRD strongly opposes the recommended action of approving the Holtec CISF License and instead supports the No Action Alternative.

In addition, the draft EIS fails to consider impacts to oil and gas development in the area. Nearly 40% of all state revenue in New Mexico is generated directly from oil and gas production taxes.

According to the Permian Basin Petroleum Association, the proposed site would threaten executed contracts with the United States for operators who have invested in leasing the area for mineral exploration and development for oil and gas production.

1. Moving spent nuclear fuel multiple times creates unnecessary risks to public health, safety, and the environment.

The NRC stated in its Waste Confidence Decision1 that spent fuel can be stored safely beyond the operating life of a power reactor, at their current locations, until a national repository for spent nuclear fuel is established. States and regional groups have consistently supported moving the fuel only once - from current locations to a national permanent repository. Moving spent nuclear fuel multiple times increases the likelihood of accidents within the State of New Mexico and elsewhere.

While the NRC provided some analysis on the No Action Alternative, it did not fully meet its obligations. The NRC did not provide a detailed analysis because the alternatives either would not meet the purpose and need of the proposed project or would cause greater environmental impacts than the proposed action. (draft EIS pages xxiii - xxiv). Moreover, the NRC stated in its Waste Confidence Decision that spent nuclear fuel is safe at its current location, which is a viable No Action Alternative. It is clear the No Action Alternative is the appropriate course. The NRC neglected its obligation to the public by not including the facts and data it used to determine that the impacts of storage at a government-owned CISF, alternative design and storage technologies, an alternative location, and an alternative facility layout would either not meet the purpose and need of the proposed project or cause greater environmental impact than licensing the Holtec facility. The public has a right to review the data and provide public comment.

1 SECY-14-0072: Final Rule: Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel (RIN 3150-AJ20), July 21, 2014, https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1417/ML14177A474.pdf.

September 22, 2020 Page 3

2. Seismicity not Adequately Addressed The draft EIS asserts that operation of the proposed CISF project would not be expected to impact or be impacted by seismic events. The draft EIS provides general information about the history of earthquakes in the region, including a brief reference to earthquakes caused by fluid injection by the oil and gas industry, and asserts that CISF infrastructure will be designed to withstand seismic events, but does not provide specific information about these safeguards.

Section 3.4.4 of the draft EIS discusses earthquakes that have occurred in the region, including one near Eunice, NM, with magnitudes of 5.0 or greater. On March 26, 2020, a magnitude 5.0 earthquake struck West Texas near the New Mexico border.

Additionally, two areas in the Delaware Basin have been identified with increased seismic activity during 2019 and 2020. Both locations have no prior history of seismic activity. One cluster of events has been identified in the area near the intersection of the Eddy and Lea county line just north of the state line in Township 26 South, Range 31 East, NMPM.

The second location of seismic events is centered on Township 18 South, Range 35 East, NMPM. The United States Geological Survey Earthquake Hazard Program has recorded at least 21 events with magnitudes ranging from 3.1 to 2.3 over a three-day period in June 2020.

This second location is being investigated as a possible induced-seismicity incident related to deep injection of produced water by disposal wells. This location is approximately 18 miles northeast from the proposed Holtec facility.

Further, the draft EIS fails to specifically consider the long-term effects of injection related to oil and gas enhanced recovery projects and the exponential increase of commercial disposal of produced water. The expansion of disposal activities into both shallow and deep intervals has increased the opportunity for induced-seismic events similar to conditions observed in oil and gas producing regions in Arkansas, Texas, and Oklahoma. Currently, there is a pending application for approval of a commercial disposal well with a proposed injection capacity of 30,000 barrels of produced water per day located approximately 228 feet west of the west boundary of the Holtec facility property. Again, the design considerations for the infrastructure offer no specifics to this future scenario as oil and gas operations continue in the Permian Basin.

Since seismic events of magnitude 5.0 or greater have already occurred in this area, there is the possibility that more powerful earthquakes may occur, and the Holtec facility must be designed to withstand these more powerful seismic events. Noting the previous items, the sources used for the seismicity section of the draft EIS should include more recent efforts including the updated model of the reference used for the seismic hazard map and current seismic monitoring by the Texas Bureau of Economic GeologyTexNet and the New Mexico Tech Seismological Observatory.

3. Deficiencies Related to Waste Transportation The NRC neglected to address the complexity of transporting spent nuclear fuel across the nation and specifically across the state of New Mexico in its transportation assessment in the draft EIS. The NRC did not provide any clear assessment of the method, routes for transport, transportation impact calculations for the assumed mostly rail scenario, and the many complex issues related to route selection, collaboration with states, and other requirements within the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, as amended. Since the NRC determined it would assess the full scope as bounding analysis of the Holtec project, it should have included transportation impact calculations to a permanent repository.

The NRC completely failed to address known safety issues associated with transportation of spent nuclear fuel. The EMNRD provides the following from the U.S. Government and Accountability Office (GAO) as it indicated in its October 2015 testimony to Congress:

September 22, 2020 Page 4 The transportation of large amounts of spent fuel to an interim storage or permanent disposal location is inherently complex and the planning and implementation may take decades to accomplish. The actual time it would take depends on a number of variables including distance, quantity of material, mode of transport, rate of shipment, level of security, and coordination with state and local authorities. For example, according to officials from a state regional organization we interviewed and the Blue Ribbon Commission report, transportation planning could take about 10 years, in part because routes have to be agreed upon, first responders have to be trained, and critical elements of infrastructure and equipment need to be designed and deployed.2 The NRC did not consider the technical challenges in transporting spent nuclear fuel in any of the GAO reports, the work the NRC engaged in with states and tribes in the Ad Hoc Working Group, or the work conducted by the Western Interstate Energy Board (WIEB) High Level Radioactive Waste Committee (HLRW). Many of the challenges within the October 2014 GAO report3 were identified by experts who identified the uncertainties about the safety of newer fuel versus older fuel. Further, the NRC provided comments in the 2014 GAO report4 to Congress regarding concerns it held on the transport of high-burn up fuels regarding hydrogen buildup and cladding becoming brittle. The DOE and the Electric Power Research Institute planned a joint development5 to investigate the high burn-up fuel, its cladding, and the cask during transport. The results would take several years with the DOE stating, their strategy would not involve transportation of large amounts of high burn-up fuels until at least 2025giving more time for the development project to yield results,*$2SDJH.

Additionally, the 2014 GAO report6 included that the guidelines for storage of SNF radiation levels are significantly different than those allowed during transportation rendering some spent nuclear fuel in storage unsuitable and potentially dangerous for transport (only about 30 percent of existing spent nuclear fuel in dry storage is cool enough to transport). The NRC assessment in the draft EIS makes no reference to these very important points regarding the transport of SNF yet implies that the Holtec facility will be licensed up to 120 years and at its maximum buildout to include the entire SNF inventory across the nation. Additionally, the State of New Mexico has been actively engaged with the NRC through the DOE-NE office Rail/Routing Ad Hoc Working Group to identify issues related to transportation of SNF to investigate these uncertainties. The NRC did not include any of the work conducted over the life of the Ad Hoc Working Group in its bounding analysis.

The draft EIS and supporting documents do not address the weight capacity of existing rail systems or the new rail spur proposed for construction in New Mexico. The weight capacity of rail systems is specified as weight per axle of the rail car. A rail car with 8 or 12 axles can carry a cask without exceeding any limitation, but 12 axles will not take sharp turns, and speed is a factor. The transportation from reactor sites to the proposed storage site in New Mexico is a potential risk that must be adequately addressed in order to maximize risk reduction for New Mexico residents and the environment.

Additionally, the Federal Rail Administration has established the S2043 rail car as the standard.

The draft EIS fails to incorporate how this standard will be met in transportation planning with 2 Spent Nuclear Fuel: Legislative, Technical and Societal Challenges to its Transportation, GAO 16-121 (October 2015), pp. 3-4 3 Spent Nuclear Fuel: Outreach Needed to Help Gain Public Acceptance for Federal Activities That Address Liability, GAO 15-141 (October 2014) GAO-15-141, October 2014, https://www.gao.gov/assets/670/666454.pdf 4 GAO-15-141, October 2014, p. 25 Description of Concerns Related to High-Burn Up Fuel 5 High Burnup Dry Storage Cask Research and Development Project, 2014, https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1133392 6 GAO-15-141, October 2014, p. 26 Some Stored Spent Nuclear Fuel May Not Be Readily Transportable

September 22, 2020 Page 5 the licensee, shipper/railroad industry.

4. The draft EIS fails to evaluate potential terrorism or sabotage along the shipping corridors in New Mexico.

The draft EIS fails to fully address and mitigate the potential for acts of terrorism or sabotage along shipping corridors in New Mexico, as is required by 10 CFR Part 73, and highlighted in Western Governors Association Resolution 2018-10, Transportation, Storage and Disposal of Radioactive Waste, Radioactive Materials and Spent Nuclear Fuel. The draft EIS fails to recognize that the acts of terrorism and sabotage do not simply impact the transportation safety of future shipments, but have huge liability impacts to communities, the environment, and social-economic factors that should be included in the analysis. The final EIS also should recognize that NRCs licensing of the proposed Holtec facility creates liability against the federal government arising from potential acts of terrorism and sabotage during transportation of spent nuclear fuel.

In addition, WGA Resolution 2018-10 calls upon the generator sites of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste and the federal government to pay for all costs associated with assuring safe transportation, responding effectively to accidents and emergencies that may occur, and otherwise assuring public health and safety. The resolution calls upon nuclear utility companies to adequately fund state and local emergency and medical responder training and resources in case of an accident or terrorist attack while shipping spent nuclear fuel.

5. Deficient Evaluation of Potential Risks from Aging SNF Cannisters Some of the SNF cannisters proposed for shipment to the proposed Holtec facility have already been stored for decades. As fuel rods age they are subject to corrosion, damage or cladding, and the potential for explosive levels of hydrogen to build up inside the cannisters. The draft EIS does not adequately address these issues.

6. The Proposed Action threatens minority and low-income populations in New Mexico.

The Proposed Action threatens the high percentage of minority and low-income populations in the State of New Mexico that have already suffered disproportionately high adverse human health and environmental effects from nuclear energy and weapons programs of the United States. The Proposed Action must comply with Executive Order 12898 requiring that all federal agencies achieve environmental justice for vulnerable populations that would be disproportionately affected by programs of the United States. As such, the Proposed Action fails to comply with Executive Order 12898, CEQ guidance, or NRCs own policy on environmental justice. Environmental justice deficiencies in the draft EIS include:

a. failure to identify and evaluate the cumulative history of adverse human health and environmental effects on New Mexicos vulnerable populations; and

b. failure to quantify specific impacts and health consequences to vulnerable populations in New Mexico that might occur from the various accidents and release scenarios considered in the draft EIS.

The environmental justice deficiencies in the draft EIS must be corrected by preparation of a proper risk assessment that evaluates all potential release scenarios and that quantifies incident-specific and cumulative impacts to vulnerable populations in New Mexico. In accordance with Executive Order 12898, CEQ guidance, and NRC policy, every aspect of the Proposed Action must provide the highest level of protection to New Mexico citizens, including use of Best Available Technology in these safeguards. Our concerns about disproportionate impacts are another reason why EMNRD supports the No Action Alternative.

September 22, 2020 Page 6

7. The draft EIS fails to commit NRC to a comprehensive environmental oversight role during operation of the CISF.

The final EIS must address possible licensing conditions and NRCs obligation to evaluate and respond to adverse impacts to environmental media, e.g., soil, surface water, groundwater.

8. The New Mexico Radioactive Waste Consultation Task Force presents the following comments regarding data provided by the NRC within the draft EIS.

The Governors Radioactive Waste Consultation Task Force is authorized by the Radioactive and Hazardous Materials Act and is comprised of Cabinet Secretaries from the EMNRD, NMED, Department of Public Safety, Department of Health, and Department of Transportation, who represent the interests of the State of New Mexico regarding the safe and uneventful transportation of nuclear waste in and through the state. The Task Force negotiates on behalf of the State of New Mexico with the federal government in all areas relating to the siting, licensing, and operation of new federal disposal facilities for high-level, transuranic, and low level radioactive wastes; conducting technical and policy analyses of related issues; recommending legislation to implement the State's policies with respect to new federal disposal facilities; identifying and disseminating information on impacts associated with those disposal facilities; and coordinating any related investigations or studies undertaken by state agencies.

8.a. The NRC must thoroughly assess potential radiological impacts to workers to ensure incident-free transportation of SNF.

In section 4.3.1.2.2.1 the draft EIS states that a linear, no-threshold dose response assumes, for radiation protection purposes, that any increase in dose, however small, results in an incremental increase in health risk. The cancer risk coefficient is 5.7 x 102 health effects per person-Sv [5.7 x 104 per person-rem]. However, the draft EIS does not clarify whether the 5.7 x 10-4 represent a maximum tolerable risk. Similarly, the NRC has not provided sufficient explanation or detail to demonstrate that consideration was given, with engineering design upgrades to the shipment conveyance, to ensure risk reduction to a level of 10-6 that would signify a level of acceptable risk at which level no further improvements in safety are needed.

8.b. Radiological impacts to members of the public must be minimized by incident-free transportation of SNF.

The draft EIS posits in 4.3.1.2.2.2 that doses received by members of the public from transportation of SNF indicate low doses that are well below regulatory limits and are a small fraction of the annual dose attributable to naturally occurring background radiation. The NRC must demonstrate that the preoperational environmental sampling plan is designed to quantify natural background concentrations to completely assess radiological inventories outlined in the NRC catalog of interim CISF isotopes.

8.c. The NRC must thoroughly assess and avoid radiological impacts to workers and the public from SNF transportation accidents and must ensure local communities are prepared to promptly and effectively respond to an accident.

The draft EIS asserts that these computational forecast and transportation package designs are robust in containment of shipment contents, and further that All of the estimated radiological health effects to the public from the proposed SNF transportation under accident conditions are below the aforementioned International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) threshold and are therefore likely to be zero. 4.3.1.2.2.3, page 4-18. In New Mexico, the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant and State of New Mexico have formulated a workable partnership to advance and enhance the emergency response capabilities of emergency response entities. In contrast, Holtec has no mechanism for major outreach and funding to local emergency responders (i.e., law enforcement, fire and rescue teams, hospitals, and elected city officials, at the local and state levels, etc.) to ensure New Mexicos emergency responders would be funded

September 22, 2020 Page 7 and prepared to address any transportation accidents or releases from Holtecs CISF.

8.d. Radiological health effects references must be clarified and accessible.

The draft EIS states that, [a]ll of the estimated radiological health effects to workers and the public from the proposed SNF transportation under incident-free and accident conditions are below the aforementioned International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) threshold and are therefore likely to be zero. 4.3.1.2.2.5, page 4-20. EMNRD questions this reference and seeks a citation to the particular ICRP publication referenced.

8.e. Holtecs described decommissioning and reclamation of project impacts is not guaranteed, potentially leaving New Mexico and its citizens responsible for the costs of responding to environmental and health effects of the CISF.

Holtec has not included or proposed in Section 4.3.1.3 on Decommission and Reclamation Impacts any surety and warranty proposal to the State of New Mexico to ensure that site reclamations will fully be funded. If Holtec should experience financial challenges or unplanned setbacks, this could require New Mexico to fund and direct any remaining decommissioning and reclamation needed to protect its citizens and to restore the environment.

8.f. The conclusion in the Summary of Transportation Cumulative Impacts about cancer deaths from the SNF does not adequately characterize the risk to the public.

Considering the aforementioned estimated latent cancer fatalities (LCF) from the SNF transportation Holtec proposed for the CISF project at full build-out of 0.31 public LCFs, and 2.21 worker LCFs, and the preceding estimated LCF risk from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions of 3 LCFs, the cumulative LCF risk would remain a negligible contribution to the estimated baseline cancer risk within the exposed populations that were evaluated. 5.3.1. The conclusory language in the summary regarding the LCFs, does not explain whether this represents tolerable risk for members of the public, or acceptable risk at which no further improvements in safety need to be made. This section must be expanded to clearly identify, categorize, and explain risks to the public.

8.g. The proposed radiological environmental monitoring and reporting program is incomplete and unclear.

The REMP includes the collection of data during preoperational years to establish baseline radiological information that would be used in determining and evaluating potential impacts from operation of the proposed CISF project on the local environment. The REMP would be initiated at least 1 year prior to the operations stage. The draft EIS does not explain if the preoperational baseline data collection will include the transportation roadways and rail spur, nor whether there will be monitoring in the local communities especially in populations identified in the Environmental Justice outreach cohort. Similarly, it is unclear if NMED will be a collaborative state agency for compliance with its regulatory framework. The proposed REMP must be expanded to provide a more thorough description of the program and New Mexicos role in the REMP.