ML24295A075

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Letter - E.C. Allison to R Lewis, 09-10-2024 (Short Version)
ML24295A075
Person / Time
Site: HI-STORE, Consolidated Interim Storage Facility
Issue date: 09/10/2024
From: Allison E
Public Citizen
To: Robert Lewis
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
References
Download: ML24295A075 (1)
v • d • e


Text

E. C. Allison September I 0, 2024 Mr. Robert Lewis, Deputy Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001

Subject:

NRC and DOJ need to withdraw from the U.S.

Supreme Court case (23-13 52) filed by Holtec International (Holtec). A legal environmental impact statement (EIS) wasn't written for Holtec's high-level nuclear waste storage facility. This resulted in an illegal NRC license (SNM-2516) being issued to Holtec.

Dear Mr. Lewis; This letter provides information for correcting a situation that resulted in the issuance of illegal NRC licenses to (I) Interim Storage Partners (ISP) and (2) Holtec. Two illegal EISs were written. Irrefutable proof is included with this letter that proves the ElSs couldn't be used to issue NRC Licenses SNM-2515 and 2516. You and others need to correct this situation.

You need to deal with this situation immediately. Why? Holtec International filed an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court to get its illegal NRC license reinstated. You can check the status of the case at the court's web page. Through no fault of her own, Ms. Helton issued Holtec's illegal NRC license (SNM-2516). She had no way of knowing the license shouldn't be issued. It would be a worse tragedy, if the U.S. Supreme Court reinstates an illegal NRC license that should never have been issued.

~

.!-!:§:~.~-~ I l'n1H..,.,,_11t,c J.,,,_,.s,#INf 1h,,.#Nn,A,__,

This isn't a Final EIS.

Environmental Impact Statement for the Holtec lnternational's License Application for a Consolidated Interim Storage Facility for Spent Nuclear Fuel In Lea County, New Mexico ~------------,

A final report doesn't take Final Report the place of a Final EIS.

M~'°"

Comclf}fe!J<J Jut,- 2022 o.-e Pub1""'9d Juty 2022 P,ep-,1ed by US ~a, R~fory Carnrn.sMWt v S eve-*uOI Land~

~FlddOKICllt Ca,tso.S New Mo>*c:o faisting nuclear stora2e facility Proposed nuclear storage facility d-Olf I had to review ElSs, written by other agencies, for the agency l Four nuclear waste storage facilities, in a worked for. I was responsible for making sure legal EISs were written 40-mile area, in southeast NM-west Texas.

by employees in my office. NRC EISs NVREG-2237 and 2239 aren't legal EISs. The enclosed report focuses on unprecedented National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) violations. Because legal EISs weren't written, other laws were violated. One of the laws is The Major Fraud Act (MFA) of 1988. The statute of limitations, for prosecuting MFA violations, may have begun on May 9, 2023 with the issuance ofHoltec's illegal NRC license (SNM-2516).

They may have begun on September 13, 2021 with the issuance of IS P's illegal NRC license (SNM-2515).

Please look at the attachments. They provide information about a 736-page NRC report written for (I) one year of business and (2) the storage of 500 canisters at Holtec's proposed 40-year business. What happened? You'll find in the report. Nine, Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses (CNWRA), employees were given the job of writing two EISs at the same time. It's impossible to do this. Why issue ISP's license? ISP's high level nuclear waste storage facility would be at the existing Waste Control Specialists' low-level nuclear waste storage facility.

Why put two nuclear waste storage facilities at one location at the New Mexico--Texas state line?

Why did I send this letter? I live about 180 miles northwest of what could end up being four nuclear waste storage facilities, in a 40-mile area, in southeast NM-west Texas. Because of the unprecedented violation of laws, I have one question. Was anyone paid (bribed) tom ke sure NRC licenses were issued for one or both companies?

0 Sincerely, P,. C.,7l((ison

?t1/ SO/ : Selected pages from eptember I 0, 2024 report. : Flash drive with report.

NRC FORM 588 (10.2000)

,ocmn U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION PAGE

.1. OF..l. PAGES LICENSE FOR INDEPENDENT STORAGE OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL AND HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-438). and nue 10, Code of Federal Regulations. Chapter 1, Part 72, and in reliance on statements and representations heretofore made by the licensee. a license is hereby issued authorizing the licensee to receive, acquire, and possess the power reactor spent fuel and other radioactive materials associated with spent fuel storage designated below; to use such material for the purpose(s) and at the place(s) designated below; and to deliver or transfer such material to persons authorized to receive it in accordance with the regulations of the applicable Part(s). This license shall be deemed to contain the conditions specified in Section 183 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and is subject to all applicable rules, regulations, and orders of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission now or hereafter in effect and to any conditions specified herein.

This license is conditioned upon fulfilling the requirements of 10 CFR Part 72, as applicable. the attached Appendix A (Technical Specifications), and the conditions specified below.

Licensee

1.

Holtec International

2.

Holtec Technology Center 1 Holtec Blvd Camden, NJ 08104

6.

Byproduct, Source and /or Special Nuclear Material A.

Spent nuclear fuel elements from commercial nuclear utilities licensed pursuant to 10 CFR Part 50 and associated radioactive materials related to the receipt, transfer, and storage of that spent nuclear fuel.

3.

License No.

Amendment No.

4 Expiration Date

5.

Docket or Reference No.

7.

Chemical and/or Physical Form A.

Undamaged fuel assemblies, damaged fuel assemblies, and fuel debris, as allowed by Certificate of Compliance No. 1040, Amendments 0, 1, and 2, for the HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System, and described in Paragraph 9 below.

SNM-2516 0

May 9, 2063 72-1051

8.

Maximum Amount That Licensee May Possess at Any One Time Under This License A.

8,680 Metric Tons of Uranium (500 loaded canisters) in the fonn of undamaged fuel assemblies, damaged fuel assemblies. and fuel debris

9.

Authorized Use: The material identified in 6.A and 7.A above is authorized for receipt, possession, storage, and transfer in the HI-STORE Consolidated Interim Storage (CIS) Facility, as described in the HI-STORE CIS Facility Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR). Storage is authorized only in casks designed in accordance with Certificate of Compliance No. 1040, Amendments 0, 1, and 2, for the HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System.

10.

Authorized Place of Use: The licensed material is to be'received, possessed, transferred, and stored at the HI-STORE CIS Facility located in Lea County, New Mexico.

11.

The Technical Specifications contained in the Appendix attached hereto are incorporated into the license. The licensee shall operate the HI-STORE CIS Facility in accordance with the Technical Specifications in the Appendix.

12.

The design, construction, and operation of the HI-STORE CIS Facility shall be accomplished in accordance with the NRC's regulations specified in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations. All commitments to applicable Commission Regulatory Guides and to applicable engineering and construction codes shall be met.

NRC FORM 588A (10-2000) 10CFR n U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION PAGE 2

OF 3

PAGES l.Jcense No.

LICENSE FOR INDEPENDENT STORAGE OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL ANO HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE Docket or Reference No 72-1051 I

Amendmen~ No.

SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET

13. The licensee shall follow the "Holtec International & Eddy Lea Energy Alliance (ELEA) Underground Consolidated Interim Storage Facility -

Emergency Response Plan," Hl-2177535, Revision 5, dated November 17, 2022, and as further supplemented and revised in accordance with 10 CFR 72.44(f).

14. The licensee shall:

(1 )

follow the "Holtec International & Eddy Lea Energy Alliance (ELEA) Underground Consolidated Interim Storage Facility - Physical Security Plan," Hl-2177559, Revision 3, dated March 2, 2020, as it may be further amended under the provisions of 10 CFR 72.44(e) and 72.186; (2) follow the "Holtec International & Eddy Lea Energy Alliance (ELEA) Underground Consolidated Interim Storage Facility-Safeguards Contingency Plan," Hl-2177560, Revision 3, dated March 2, 2020, as it may be further amended under the provisions of 10 CFR 72.44(e) and 72.186; and (3) follow the "Holtec International & Eddy Lea Energy Alliance (ELEA) CISF Security Training and Qualification Plan," Hl-2177561, Revision 2, dated March 30, 2019, as it may be further amended under the provisions of 10 CFR 72.44(e) and 72.186.

(4) follow the "Additional Security Measures for the Physical Protection of Dry Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installations," dated September 28, 2007.

(5) follow the "Additional Security Measures for Access Authorization and Fingerprinting at Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installations," dated February 4, 2016.

15.

In accordance with 10 CFR 72.2.2, the construction program will be undertaken only after a definitive agreement with the prospective customer for storing the used fuel at the HI-STORE CIS Facility has been established. Construction of any additional capacity beyond the initial capacity of 500 canisters shall commence only after funding is fully committed that is adequate to construct such additional capacity.

16. The licensee shall:

( 1) include in its service contracts provisions requiring customers to retain title to the spent fuel stored, and allocating legal and financial liability among the licensee and the customers; (2) include in its service contracts provisions requiring customers to provide periodically credit information, and, where necessary, additional financial assurances such as guarantees, prepayment, or payment bond; (3) include in its service contracts a provision requiring the licensee not to terminate its license prior to furnishing the spent fuel storage services covered by the service contract.

17. The licensee shall submit a Startup Plan to the NRC at least 90 days prior to receipt and storage of spent fuel at the HI-STORE CIS Facility.

NRC FORM 588A (10-2000)

IOCFRn U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION LICENSE FOR INDEPENDENT STORAGE OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL AND HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET PAGE 3

license No.

SNM-2516 Dockel or Reference No.

72-1051 OF 3

PAGES I

Amendmen~ No

18.

The licensee shall have insurance coverage as specified in "Holtec International & Eddy Lea Energy Alliance (ELEA) Underground CISF - Financial Assurance & Project Life Cycle Cost Estimates,"

Hl-2177593, Revision 2, effective 30 days before first fuel arrival.

19.

Prior to receipt of the material identified in sections 6.A and 7.A of this license, the Licensee shall have a decommissioning financial assurance instrument, in a form of one or more of the methods described in 10 CFR 72.30(e), reflecting the current decommissioning cost estimate.

20.

This license is effective as of the date of issuance shown below.

Date of Issuance: May 9, 2023 FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

~

R. ~

Signed by Helton, Shana on 05/09/23 Shana R. Helton, Director Division of Fuel Management Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

Attachment:

Appendix A - Technical Specifications for the HI-STORE Consolidated Interim Storage (CIS) Facility

Four Nuclear Waste Storage Facilities, in a 40-Mile Area, in Southeast New Mexico-West Texas by E. C. Allison September 10, 2024 New Mexico Texas Tokio C a rs Proposed nuclear storage facility HOL TEC I ', r(RNATIONAl I

_,; 3 C :: _ n (/,)

-.~

WIPP Existing nuclear storage facility

.::..:-,.r::t fa;~

P,:.-ert

-,,.,c.t ~a.;<....,.,

,:t Preit.as

~

e Hgginbotham

~

INTERIM STORAGE

~ &

PA RTNERS Rorey WASH CO"-ITRO SP*(" A S S Existing nuclear storage facility Kennit

~nk

':} ~arro,r-J

..,,.!:.f,...,

Wellman Proposed nuclear storage facility Sundanc,t

  • Od sa f:den :: /

Cl< 0:sp Lea Co Landi.:!

lmmedi ale Vi clnity of Proposed CISF INCS Prcpett,i l.Jne

[..:Jic-......,

o,:,..i;a:iu-s c

~:-r ::,~41,'I, ca.~,

c s-.,,...

o s 10 20 I

--===--- Mdes 7-Kilomelers 0 5 10 20 30 40 Q WIPP (Eddy County, New Mexico) / ~~-~r,,! Holtec International (Lea County, New Mexico).

II(',.,., II Interim Storage Partners at 0.37 miles east of NM-Texas state line.

I (@ I Waste Control Specialists at (about) 1 mile east of NM-Texas state line.

~@@

world nuclear news Holtec calls for US Supreme Court to reinstate New Mexico licence 08My2024 Holte<: International has joined the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission {NRQ and the US Federal Government in filing petitions asking the Supreme Court to reinstate the licence for a proposed interim storage facility for used fuel to be built in New Mexico.

ij.

i!.,~

Hritec's rtfldmng of lhf HI-STORE C/SF (lmogt: Hritec)

The NRC issued the licence in May 2023 for Holtec to build and operate the HI-STORE consolidated interim storage facility {CIS~ on land owned by the Eddy Lea Energy Alliance {ELEA), a regional economic development entity in SoutheastNew Mexico. But in March this year, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals published a decision to 'vacate* the licence following a similar ruling against another private interim storage licence in Texas.

11

SUMMARY

There could be four nuclear waste storage facilities, in a 40-mile area, in southeast New Mexico-West Texas (see Exhibit 1). That would happen, if two illegal United States (U.S.) Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licenses are reinstated. One illegal NRC license (SNM-2515) was issued to Interim Storage Partners (ISP) on September 13, 2021. The other illegal NRC license (SNM-2516) 0was issued to Holtec International (Holtec) on May 9, 2023.

The Appeals Court for the Fifth Circuit vacated both licenses. Holtec filed an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court, to reinstate its NRC license. The court can't reinstate an illegal NRC license.

Why did NRC issue two illegal licenses? NRC and Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) employees, who work for SwRI's Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses (CNWRA), didn't write legal environmental impact statements (EISs) for the nuclear waste storage facilities proposed by Holtec and ISP. The unprecedented National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) violations, in the NRC EISs, are presented in this report. NRC employees used the illegal EISs to issue the licenses. This resulted in the issuance of two illegal NRC licenses.

The issuance of the two illegal NRC licenses could result in four nuclear waste storage facilities, in a 40-mile area, in southeast NM-west Texas. That is, if two new nuclear waste storage facilities are built. There isn't another place in the United States or the world, with four nuclear waste storage facilities clustered together in a 40-mile area.

It appears NRC and CNWRA employees left this information out ofNRC's illegal 2021 and 2022 EISs written for ISP and Holtec. It's for this reason the public, and the courts, don't know about it. It's important to note. What the two companies are proposing to do, hasn't been done before in the United States.

What's more, they would store the most dangerous nuclear waste in the United States. It's for that reason it was imperative good EISs were written for Holtec's and ISP's proposed nuclear waste storage businesses.

Reinstating an illegal NRC license, that should never have been issued, would be a worse tragedy than issuing it. It would also set a precedent for issuing more, of a new kind ofNRC license, for private, untested and untried, away-from-111

reactor, nuclear waste storage facilities in the United States. They are also called consolidated interim storage facilities (CISFs).

Holtec filed an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court asking the court to reinstate Holtec's NRC license. Therefore, much of the text in this report is concerned with NRC's illegal 2022 EIS (NUREG-2237) written for Holtec.

Nine employees, who work for SwRI's CNWRA, were assigned the job of writing two EISs at the same time. (The same NEPA violations were made in NRC's illegal 2021EIS for ISP and 2022 EIS for Holtec.) Thirty-five people worked on the last EIS I worked on for the government. Seventy-five people worked on NRC's 2001 EIS (NUREG-1714) for the first proposed CISF facility.

Nine people, to write two EISs at the same time-there was never any intention off writing one legal EIS, much Jess two legal EISs for the second and third proposed CISF facilities in the United States. What's more, they're untested and untried facilities. They would store the most dangerous nuclear waste (spent nuclear fuel), transported from dozens of power plants or reactors, in the U.S.

V

TABLE OF CONTENTS World Nuclear News, July 2024, first page of news article

SUMMARY

TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION I.

Unprecedented Violations, of the National Environmental Policy Act, 11 111 VI 1

Results in Issuance of an Illegal NRC License to Holtec International......... 1 II.

Four Nuclear Waste Storage Facilities, in a 40-Mile Area, in Southeast New Mexico-West Texas............................................ 1 ARGUMENT 4

I.

Unprecedented Violations, of the National Environmental Policy Act, Results in Issuance of an Illegal NRC License to Holtec International......... 4 A.

Holtec's Plans for Its Nuclear Waste Storage Business...........4 B.

A New Kind of Nuclear Waste Storage Facility................... 5 C.

Moving Spent Nuclear Fuel From 12 Power Plants or Reactors................................................................................ 5 D.

A New Kind ofNRC License......................................... 6 E.

The Ultimate NEPA Violation...................................... 13 F.

NRC and CNWRA Staff Tells US They Didn't Write an EIS.......................................................... 13 G.

Moving Spent Nuclear Fuel is Missing From NRC's 2022 EIS....................................................... 16 H.

NRC's EIS Written for Three Years of a 40-Year Business... 21 I.

Missing U.S. Bureau of Land Management..................... 23 J.

Only 1,080 Acres..................................................... 25 K.

Nine CNWRA Employees Assigned to Write Two EISs at the Same Time...................................................................... 29 II.

Four Nuclear Waste Storage Facilities, in a 40-Mile Area, in Southeast New Mexico-West Texas.......................................... 41 VI

A.

What Are the Facilities?........................................................... 51

1. Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) existing.................. 51
2. Waste Control Specialists (WCS) existing.................... 51
3. Holtec International (Holtec) proposed........................ 51
4. Interim Storage Partners (ISP) proposed...................... 51 B.

Why Issue an NRC License for a Second Nuclear Waste Storage Facility at an Existing Nuclear Waste Storage Facility?....................................................................... 60 C.

No One Could Figure Out There Would Be More, Than One Nuclear Waste Storage Facility in Southeast NM-West Texas................................................................................ 62 D.

Four Low-Level Nuclear Waste Disposal Facilities, in Four States, in the United States................................. 62 E.

Unbelievable Unimaginable NEPA Violations................... 64 F.

Violating Other Laws................................................ 64 CONCLUSION 66 REFERENCES 67 Exhibit 1.

Exhibit 2.

Exhibit 3.

Exhibit 4.

Exhibit 5.

Exhibit 6.

Exhibit 7.

Exhibit 8.

List of Exhibits.

Four Nuclear Waste Storage Facilities, in a 40-Mile Area, in Southeast New Mexico-West Texas...........................iv, 3, 50 Holtec Wants to Move Spent Nuclear Fuel from 12 Power Plants or Reactors..................................................................... 7 ISP Wants to Move Spent Nuclear Fuel from 12 Power Plants or Reactors..................................................................... 8 Section 6A in New NRC Licenses.......................................... 9 Section 6A in Previous NRC Licenses.................................... 11 Manuscript and Final Report Completed July 2022 for Holtec........ 14 Manuscript and Final Report Completed July 2021 for ISP............ 15 Correct Cover for a Final EIS.............................................. 17 Vil

Exhibit 9.

Moving spent Nuclear Fuel From Eight Power Plants or Reactors to Private Fuel Storage's Nuclear Business.............................. 19 Exhibitl 0.

Amendments (Phases 2 thru 20) Illegally Excluded From NRC's 2022 EIS................................................................................... 22 Exhibit 11. NRC Approves Holtec's Plan of Operations, Not BLM................ 24 Exhibit 12. Impact Analysis May Have Been Limited to Holtec's Facility, Rail Spur, and a Road......................................................................... 26 Exhibit 13. Recreation Information Missing From NRC's 2022 EIS............... 27 Exhibit 14. Recreation in Vicinity ofHoltec's Proposed Facility................... 28 Exhibit 15. List of Preparers in NRC's 2022 EIS Written for Holtec............... 30 Exhibit 16. List of Preparers in NRC's 2021 EIS Written for ISP.................... 33 Exhibit 17. CNWRA Employees Work for Southwest Research Institute (SwRI)......................................................................... 36 Exhibit 18 Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses is One of Eleven Divisions at SwRI............................................................ 37 Exhibit 19. List of Preparers in 2018 Draft EIS Written for BLM.................. 39 Exhibit 20. List of Preparers and List of Reviewers in NRC's 2001 EIS...........42 Exhibit 21. Information About WIPP................................................... 52 Exhibit 22. A Paragraph About WIPP in NRC's 2022 EIS for Holtec............. 53 Exhibit 23. Waste Control Specialists (WCS) Information........................... 54 Exhibit 24. A Paragraph About WCS in NRC's 2022 EIS for Holtec.............. 56 Exhibit 25. A Paragraph About ISP in NRC's 2022 EIS for Holtec................ 57 Exhibit 26. Map of ISP's Proposed Facility at WCS's Nuclear Waste Storage Facility............................................................... 58 Exhibit 26. Diagram Showing ISPs Proposed Facility (Blue Square) at WCS's Nuclear Waste Storage Facility................................... 59 Exhibit 27. Text About ISP's Proposed Facility at WCS's Existing Nuclear Waste Storage Facility in NRC's 2021 EIS for ISP.......... 61 Exhibit 28. Four Low-Level Nuclear Waste Disposal Facilities, in Four States in the United States.......................................................... 63 Vlll

INTRODUCTION I.

Unprecedented Violations, of the National Environmental Policy Act, Results in Issuance of an Illegal NRC license to Holtec International.

The law, the U.S. Supreme Court has to consider, is the National Environmental Policy (NEPA) of 1969. Federal agencies have to comply with NEPA before they can issue licenses. In this case, before NRC could issue Holtec International (Holtec) an NRC license.

For people, who don't know what Holtec wants to do. Holtec wants to obtain a new kind of NRC license for a new kind of nuclear waste storage facility. Holtec wants to (1) transport the most dangerous nuclear waste in the United States, from 12 power plants or reactors, and (2) store it at its privately owned business in southeast New Mexico (NM). What Holtec is proposing to do, has never been done before in the United States. Has it been done anywhere in the world?

It's not known why. NRC and SwRI's Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses (CNWRA) employees wrote a report instead of the environmental impact statement (EIS) they were required to write to comply with NEPA. I've never seen anything like it in my 30-year career with the government. As far as I know, nothing like this has happened before. If it has, surely, it's a rarely seen NEPA violation. Writing a report instead of an EIS is the ultimate NEPA violation.

I've written a lot of environmental assessments (EAs) and worked on EISs.

I know, from experience. It was illegal for NRC to use a report to issue Holtec International an NRC license. The illegal NRC license, issued to Holtec International, can't be reinstated by the U.S. Supreme Court.

II.

Four Nuclear Waste Storage Facilities, in a 40-Mile Area, in Southeast New Mexico--West Texas.

I wanted to find out what Holtec was proposing to do at its nuclear waste storage business. During that process, I discovered a shocking and unimaginable situation that has to be considered and addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The issuance of two illegal NRC licenses, in 2021 and 2023, created an unexpected, shocking, and surprising situation. As of May 9, 2023, there were 1

(I) two existing, low-level nuclear waste storage facilities (WIPP and WCS) and (2) two newly licensed, high-level nuclear waste storage facilities (Holtec and ISP), in a 40-mile area, in southeast New Mexico-west Texas (see Exhibit 1).

NRC and SwRI's CNWRA employees knew about this situation, when they wrote the illegal EISs for the businesses proposed by Holtec and ISP. For people, experienced in writing EISs, it appears the information was left out of the EISs.

NRC's efforts to issue licenses, for the first consolidated interim storage facilities (CISF), as they're called, resulted in a huge case of fraud. Why? NRC and SwRI's CNWRA employees wrote two reports. NRC employees presented, and defended, them as legal EISs to the public and the courts. Because EISs weren't written, they violated The Major Fraud Act of 1988 and other laws.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated (I) Interim Storage Partners' and (2) Holtec Intemational's licenses. Now, the U.S. Supreme Court has to deal with Holtec's request to reinstate an illegal NRC license. Reinstating Holtec's illegal NRC license, by the U.S. Supreme Court, would be a worse tragedy than NRC's issuance of it.

New Mexican's, American's deserve better than this. So too, does Holtec International and Interim Storage Partners. The companies expected NRC employees to do their jobs and issue them legal NRC licenses.

Finally, there shouldn't be any place in the United States, with four nuclear waste storage facilities clustered together in a 40-mile area. What's more, the two facilities would store the most dangerous nuclear waste (spent nuclear fuel) in the United States.

2

ARGUMENT I.

Unprecedented Violations, of the National Environmental Policy Act, Results in Issuance of an Illegal NRC license to Holtec International.

NRC has to comply with NEPA before it can issue NRC licenses. In this case, before NRC could issue Holtec International an NRC license. Questions, as to which nuclear law gives NRC the authority to issue Holtec's NRC license, are immaterial. Why? NRC had to write a legal EIS before it could issue (1) (what's called) an NRC Record of Decision and (2) an NRC license. That didn't happen.

A Record of Decision (ROD) states the decision the agency makes about a proposed project. The ROD is based on the information in the EIS. A ROD has to be issued before an NRC license can be issued. Because NRC and SwRl's CNWRA employees didn't write a legal 2022 EIS for Holtec International, NRC's 2023 ROD isn't a legal document. The illegal EIS and ROD couldn't be used to issue Holtec an NRC license. It's no wonder Holtec was issued an illegal license.

A.

Holtec's Plans for Its Nuclear Waste Storage Business.

Holtec plans on taking two years to construct its facility. Holtec would store 500 canisters of spent nuclear fuel in the first year of business. It's expected to take 3 years to complete what Holtec calls Phase 1. Holtec plans on expanding its facility every year for 19 years.

Holtec calls this Phases 2 thru 20.

Each year, 500 canisters of spent nuclear fuel would be (1) transported from 12 power plants or reactors and (2) stored at Holtec's business. At the end of 20 years (20 phases), Holtec would store 10,000 canisters of spent nuclear fuel for 20 to 3 8 years, before the end of Holtec's 40-year NRC license. The length of time (20 to 38) is based on the year the spent nuclear fuel is stored at Holtec's business.

It's assumed the 10,000 canisters would be moved, before the end of Holtec's 40-year license, to a permanent geologic repository.

It took 20 years to store I 0,000 canisters. It'll take 20 years to move Holtec's I 0,000 canisters to a permanent repository. Holtec 4

E.

The Ultimate NEPA Violation.

Holtec wants to build and operate a private, untested and untried, away-from-reactor, nuclear waste storage facility in the U.S.

Holtec tells us it would be the first in the U.S. (see page 5). It's not known why NRC and SwRI's CNWRA employees didn't do the most basic thing of all. Write an environmental impact statement (EIS) for Holtec's proposed nuclear waste storage facility.

As unbelievable as it is, NRC and SwRI's CNWRA employees wrote a report instead of the EIS they were required to write to comply with NEPA. I've never seen anything like it in my 30-year career with the government. It's the ultimate NEPA violation.

F.

NRC and CNWRA Staff Tells US They Didn't Write an EIS.

NRC and SwRI's CNWRA staff tells us, they wrote a Final Report, on the cover ofNRC's 2022 EIS for Holtec. (The NEPA regulations [40 CFR §1502.ll(d)] tell employees to identify the final document as a final EIS, not a final report.) NRC and SwRI's CNWRA staff tells us, on the cover. They completed work on a manuscript in July 2022. (You won't see the word manuscript in ( 1)

NEPA, (2) the NEPA regulations, (3) NRC's NEPA regulations, or (4) EISs.) NRC has its own set ofNEPA regulations (10 CFR 51).

NRC and SwRI's CNWRA staff tells the public, and the courts, they did the same thing for ISP's proposed nuclear waste storage facility. They wrote a report instead of the EIS they were required to write to comply with NEPA.

This is an unbelievable unimaginable NEPA violation. See the cover on NRC's illegal 2021 and 2022 EISs written for Interim Storage Partners and Holtec International (see Exhibits 6 and 7).

The best proof, an EIS wasn't written for Holtec's nuclear waste storage facility, is an NRC EIS written for Private Fuel Storage.

It was written for the first application for the first of its' kind, private, away-from reactor, nuclear waste storage facility. The EIS was 13

Exhibit 6.

Manuscript and Final Report Completed July 2022 for Holtec. It's not a final EIS.

~U.S.NRC l'rotrctinl{ PPoplL' nnd 1/,e J-:1111iro11nu*111 This isn't a Final EIS.

Environmental Impact Statement for the Holtec lnternational's License Application for a Consolidated Interim Storage Facility for Spent Nuclear Fuel in Lea County, New Mexico Final Report A final report doesn't take the place of a Final EIS.

Manuscript Completed: July 2022 Date Published* July 2022 Prepared by U S Nuclear Regulatory Comm1ss1on US. Bureau of Land Management Car1sbad Field Office Carlsbad. New Mex,co Office of N uclear Material Safety and Safeguards 14 NUREG 2237

Exhibit 7.

Manuscript and Final Report Completed July 2021 for ISP. It's not a final EIS.

~U.S.NRC U n ired S cates ~ u clca r Regulator y Comn1is:.jon Protecting P eople a nd the Environment This isn't a Final EIS.

Environmental Impact Statement for Interim Storage Partners LLC's License Application for a Consolidated Interim Storage Facility for Spent Nuclear Fuel in Andrews County, Texas Final Report A final report doesn't take the place of a Final EIS.

... Manuscript Completed: July 2021 Date Published: July 2021 Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards 15 NUREG-2239

completed in 2001. The information, in NRC's 2001 EIS, is the information that needed to be in NRC's 2021 and 2022 EISs.

See the cover, for the EIS written for PFS, in Exhibit 8. To date, the only EIS written for the (three) first of their kind, private, away-from-reactor, nuclear waste storage facilities, is NRC's 2001 EIS.

G.

Moving Spent Nuclear Fuel is Missing From NRC's 2022 EIS.

When you write an EIS, you tell the public everything a company plans on doing. Holtec's plans, for its business, are in the Environmental Report submitted to NRC. (Business proposals, submitted by companies, are called Proposed Actions in EISs.

Holtec's plans, for its business, are in (what's called) an NRC Proposed Action in NRC's 2022 EIS.)

The most important information, in Holtec's Environmental Report, is moving spent nuclear fuel from 12 power plants or reactors to its business in southeast New Mexico. NRC employees didn't put this information in NRC's 2022 EIS. It's not known why. It's a huge, unbelievable NEPA violation.

There are a few sentences, in NRC's 2022 EIS, Holtec will move spent nuclear fuel from multiple nuclear facilities. It's stated on page 2-2. "For the initial and subsequent phases of the proposed CISF, SNF would be received from operating, decommissioning, and decommissioned reactor facilities."

NRC employees didn't include the table (in NRC's 2022 EIS),

listing the 12 power plants or reactors, in Holtec's Environmental Report. On the other hand, there's a lot of information, on moving spent nuclear fuel from eight power plants or reactors to PFS 's proposed nuclear business, in NRC's 2001 EIS (see Exhibit 9).

For people, experienced in writing EISs, it appears this information was left out ofNRC's 2022 EIS. Because this information isn't in NRC's EIS, a huge part of (what's called) the NRC Proposed Action is missing from NRC's 2022 EIS. Next to writing a report instead of an EIS, this is the next, worst NEPA violation.

16

Exhibit 8.

Correct Cover for a Final EIS. You're told it's a final EIS on the cover.

Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Construction and Operation of an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation on the Reservation of the Skull Valley Band NUREG-1714 Vol. 1 of Goshute Indians and the Related Transportation Facility in Tooele County, Utah Docket No. 72-22 Private Fuel Storage, L.L.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs U.S. Bureau of Land Management U.S. Surface Transportation Board December 2001 17

Exhibit 8 ( continued).

Final EIS is Noted at the Top of Most of the Pages in NRC's 2001 EIS.

FINAL EIS-Purpo.,*e and Need government relationship with, and trust responsibility (including consideration of environmental impacts) to the Skull Valley Band. This difference has ramifications for the scope of BIA's NEPA review and the range of the BIA's reasonable alternatives. As part of its government-to-government relationship with the Skull Valley Band, BIA's NEPA review is limited to the scope of the proposed lease negotiated between the parties, not evaluation of actions outside the lease (e.g., ultimate disposition of the SNF). Similarly, the range of B IA's reasonable alternatives is limited to those that will serve the Skull Valley Band's economic development. consistent with the BIA's trust responsibility [i.e.,

the approval of the proposed PFSF site location(s) on the Reservation, or no action-disapproval of the lease]. PFS has identified an alternative site location on the Reservation (see Section 2.2.3). If BIA identifies this alternative site as the preferred alternative, it would require the Skull Valley Band and PFS to amend the proposed lease.

... 1.5.3 BLM Fe dera l Actio n 1.5.3.1 Rights-of-W ay and Resource M anagement Plann ing By letter dated August 28. 1998, PFS applied to SLM for separate rights-of-way to provide transportation routes from the Interstate 80 corridor to the proposed PFSF site on the Reservation.

The applicant's preferred route is a rail line from Skunk Ridge along the base of the Cedar Mountains on the western side of Skull Valley, then east to th e proposed site (Figure 1.2). The alternative transportation mode is an ITF located 2.9 km (1.8 miles) west of the intersection of 1-80 and Skull Valley Road (see Section 2.2.4.2). At the ITF, S N F would be transferred from railcars to heavy-haul vehicles and transported to the p roposed PFSF via the Skull Valley Road.

T he location of either the rail corridor or the ITF would occupy public la nd that is included within the SLM Pony E xpress resource management plan ( R MP). The decisions in the current RMP do not provide for a major right-of-way, such as a rail line, along the west side of Skull Valley. The PFS p roposal would. therefore, require an amendment to the RMP, Tra nsportation and Utility Corrido r Decision 1, prior to BLM granting the rail line right-of-way. The amendme nt would add an exception to the resource management plan decision to allow the construction and use of the proposed rail line outside the established corridors. T h is FEIS will serve as the NEPA document for BLM's determinations with respect to granting a right-of-way and the proposed p lan amendment, should BLM approve the rail line right-of-way.

T he following planning criteria have been established by SLM to guide the development of the amendment to the Pony Express RMP:

The Plan will address only BLM lands administered by the Salt Lake Field Office and will not address private lands or lands administered by other government agencies.

Coordination and cooperation across interagency administrative boundar ies will take place in both planning and implementation.

The public will have an opportunity to provide information and re commendations on the proposal and to review and comment on the proposed action before a final manageme nt decision.

Social and economic impacts to local c ommunities resulting from public land management will be considered.

B LM 's action-dependent on NRC issuing a license and BIA approving a lease-is to issue a rig ht-of-way grant under 43 CFR Part 2800 for the rail line, or for the ITF, or to deny both applications If the rail line alternative is selected, BLM would require resolution of a planning restriction imposed b y 1-17 NUREG-1714 18

K.

Nine CNWRA Employees Assigned to Write Two EISs at the Same Time.

NRC and SwRI's CNWRA employees committed unbelievable unimaginable NEPA violations not once, but twice. They wrote two reports instead of two EISs for Holtec's and ISP's proposed nuclear waste storage facilities. Questions have to be asked about the decisions made by NRC managers (1) Jill Caverly, (2) John Cuadrado-Cabarallo, (3) Stacey Imboden, (4) James Park and (5)

Diane Diaz-Toro (see Exhibits 15 and 16).

Nine NRC employees, in SwRI's Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analysis (CNWRA), were assigned the job of writing an EIS for Holtec's proposed facility. They were also assigned the job of writing an EIS, for ISP's proposed nuclear facility, at the same time they were writing Holtec' s EIS. See information about the Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) and CNWRA in Exhibit 1 7 NRC managers gave nine CNWRA employees the impossible job of writing two EISs at the same time. It's important to note. It usually takes two years to write a draft EIS and two years to write a final EIS before NRC licenses can be issued.

A much larger team-like the team that wrote NRC's 2001 EIS-writes one EIS, never two EISs at a time. How many people were involved in the preparation ofNRC's 2001 EIS? Seventy-five (75) people worked on NRC's 2001 EIS. Thirty-five people worked on the last EIS, I worked on, for BLM.

The names, of the NRC managers and SwRI's CNWRA employees, are in the List of Preparers in (1) NRC's 2021 EIS for ISP and (2) NRC's 2022 EIS for Holtec (see Exhibits 15 and 16). For comparison purposes, see the List of Preparers for a draft EIS written by the Carlsbad Field Office (see Exhibit 18).

An insignificant NEPA regulatory requirement, to list the names of people who prepare EISs, turns out to be the answer. Why the NRC committed unbelievable unimaginable NEPA violations two 29

Exhibit 15.

List of Preparers in NRC's 2022 EIS Written for Holtec.

~U.S.NRC Prolt"rtinl( Peop/,r and the J-:n11ir-onm~111 Environmental Impact Statement for the Holtec lnternational's License Application for a Consolidated Interim Storage Facility for Spent Nuclear Fuel in Lea County, New Mexico Final Report Manuscript Completed: July 2022 Date Published* July 2022 Prepared by U S Nuclear Regulatory Comm1ss1on U S. Bureau of Land Management Car1sbad Field Office Cartsbad. New Mexico Office of N uclear Material Safety and Safeguards 30 NUREG 2237

Exhibit 15 ( continued).

It's not known why people are listed as contributors. I've never seen that in a List of Preparers. The employees, in CNWRA, wrote NRC's 2021 EIS for ISP.

10 LIST OF PREPARERS This section documents all individuals who were involved wit h the preparation of this final E nvironmental Impact Statement (EIS). Contributors include staff from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and consultants. Each individual's ro le, education, and experienc e are outlined next.

10.1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Contributors Jill Caverly: Environmental Project Manager B.S., Civil Engineering, George Washington University, 1992 M.S., Civil Engineering, George Washington University, 1996 Years of Experience: 28 Jose Cuadrado-Caraballo: Safety Project Manager B.S., Chemical Engineering, University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez Campus, 2002 M.B.A., Finance, University of Maryland, College Park, 2007 Years of Experience: 19 Stacey Imboden: Environmental Project Manager B.S., Meteorology, Pennsylvania State University, 1999 M.S., Environmental Engineering, Clemson University, 2001 Years of Experience: 20 10.2 Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses (CNWRA) Contributors Nathan B. Hall: Waste Management S.S., Fire Protection Engineering, University of Maryland, 2006 M.B.A., Business Administration, Johns Hopkins University, 2012 Years of Experience: 15 Taylor Holt: Water Resources, Cumulative Impacts B.S., Biological and Agricultural Engineering, Texas A&M University 2014 M.E., Biological and Agricultural Engineering, Texas A&M University 2017 Years of Experience: 5 Lane Howard: National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Reviewer. Public and Occupational Health B.S., Civil Engineering, Texas A&M University 1988.

M.S., Nuclear Engineering, Texas A&M University 1995.

Years of Experience: 33 Miriam Juckett: Senior Program Manager, NEPA Reviewer, Public Outreach, Waste Management B.S., Chemistry, University of Texas at San Antonio, 2003 M.S., Environmental Sciences, University of Texas at San Antonio, 2006 Years of Experience: 18 10-1 31

Exhibit 15 ( continued).

Maybe 'contributors' is noted for contributions to NRC's 2022 manuscript-report.

Patrick LaPlante: Transportation, Public and Occupational Health B.S.. Environmental Studies, Western Washington University, 1988 M.S., Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Georgetown University, 1994 Years of Experience: 32 Amy Hester Minor: Ecological Resources, Socioeconomics, Environmental Justice B.A., Environmental Studies, University of Kansas, 1998 Years of Experience: 22 Marla Morales: Principal Investigator, Land Use, Noise, Visual and Scenic, Geology and Soils B.A., Geology, Vanderbilt University, 2001 M.S., Geology, University of Texas at San Antonio, 2007 Years of Experience: 20 James Prikryl: Geology and Soils, Water Resources S.S., Geology, University of Texas at Austin, 1984 M.A., Geology, University of Texas at Austin, 1989 Years of Experience: 36 Bradley Werling: Meteorology, Climatology, Air Quality, Cost Benefit B.A.. Engineering Physics, Westmont College, Santa Barbara, 1985 S.S., Chemistry, Southwest Texas State University, 1999 M.S., Environmental Science, University of Texas at San Antonio, 2000 Years of Experience: 25 10.3 CNWRA Consultants and Subcontractors Hope Luhman: National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 Support B.A.. Anthropology, Muhlenberg College, 1980 M.A., Social Relations, Lehigh University, 1982 M.A., Anthropology, Bryn Mawr College, 1988 Ph.D., Anthropology, Bryn Mawr College, 1991 Years of Experience: 32 Andrew Wilkins: Cultural and Historic Resources B.A., Historic Preservation, University of Mary Washington, 2006 M.A., Historical Archaeology, University of Massachusetts Boston, 2009 Ph.D., Anthropology, University of Tennessee, 2017 Years of Experience: 13 10-2 32

for Holtec. There are 12 BLM employees in the List of Reviewers in NRC's 2001 EIS (see Exhibit 19).

Assigning nine people to write two EISs at the same time-there was never any intent to write one, much less two legal EISs for the first of their kind, private, untested and untried, away-from reactor, nuclear waste storage facilities in the United States.

Information was left out ofNRC's 2022 EIS. There's more information in this report, about Holtec's plans to move spent nuclear fuel from 12 power plants or reactors, than is in NRC's 2022 EIS. It appears the missing information was meant to insure an NRC license would be issued to Holtec International. NRC's illegal 2022 EIS ends up being a justification statement instead of the environmental impact statement required by NEPA.

II.

Four Nuclear Waste Storage Facilities, in a 40-Mile Area, in Southeast New Mexico--West Texas.

NEPA required NRC and CNWRA employees address (1) ISP's proposed nuclear waste storage facility, (2) Waste Control Specialists' (WCS's) existing nuclear waste storage facility, and (3) WIPP's existing nuclear waste storage facility in NRC's 2022 EIS written for Holtec. Why?

NEPA requires (what's called) cumulative impact analysis be conducted in EISs. You look at the impacts that could occur from (1) adding two new, nuclear waste storage facilities to (2) two existing nuclear waste storage facilities in close proximity to each other. When you look at where the four facilities would be located, four nuclear waste storage facilities would be in a 40-mile area in southeast New Mexico-west Texas. The two existing and two proposed nuclear waste storage facilities are shown in Exhibit 1 on page 50.

NRC and CNWRA employees were required to look at the cumulative impacts of two existing and two proposed nuclear facilities, in a 40-mile area, in southeast New Mexico. The information was left out of NRC's 2022 EIS.

41

A.

What Are the Facilities?

1. The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) is located (about) 26 miles east of Carlsbad, NM. This federal facility stores low-level (transuranic) nuclear waste (see Exhibit 20). It's been operational since 1999. There's a paragraph, about WIPP, in NRC's 2022 EIS (see Exhibit 22).
2. A Waste Control Specialists (WCS) business is about a mile east of the NM-Texas state line (see Exhibit 23). It's approved to store low-level nuclear waste. It's (about) 40 miles east of WIPP and Holtec's proposed high-level nuclear waste storage business. See Exhibit 24 for a paragraph, about WCS, in NRC's 2022 EIS.
3. Holtec's proposed high-level nuclear waste storage facility is (about) 32 miles east of Carlsbad, NM and 15 miles north of WIPP. It's (about) 40 miles west of (I) WCS's low-level nuclear waste storage business and (2) Interim Storage Partner's proposed high-level nuclear waste storage nuclear facility.
4. Interim Storage Partners proposed high-level nuclear waste storage facility would be at WCS's complex of four businesses that includes WCS 'slow-level nuclear waste storage facility. ISP's proposed high-level nuclear waste storage facility is (about) 40 miles east of WIPP and Holtec's proposed high-level nuclear waste storage business. There's a paragraph, about ISP, in NRC's 2022 EIS (see Exhibit 25).

There would be two nuclear waste disposal facilities at WCS 's four businesses (see Exhibit 26). Why put two facilities at one location? ISP's facility would store high-level nuclear waste.

51

Exhibit 28.

Four Low-Level Nuclear Waste Disposal Facilities, in Four States, in the U.S.

WIPP is a federal low-level waste disposal facility. Why isn't it on this list?

WIPP, Holtec, ISP and WCS are in (about) a 40 mile area of land.

Locations of Low-Level Waste Disposal Facilities The four active, licensed low-level waste disposal facilities are located in Agreement States (see ma12..(#ma12]

). Additional information about the facilities may be found at the Web sites maintained by the respective Agreement States.

  • U.S. Ecology, located in R ichland, Washington Richland accepts waste from the Northwest and Rocky Mountain compacts (/waste/llw-disposal/

licensing/compacts.html]. Richland is licensed by the State of Washington to dispose of Class A, B,

and C waste.

  • EnergySolutions Clive Operations, located in Clive, Utah Clive accepts waste from all regions of the United States. Clive is licensed by the State of Utah for Class A waste only.

I WCS 1

  • Waste Control Specialists (WCS), LLC, located near Andrews, Texas WCS accepts waste from the Texas Compact generators and outside generators with permission from the Compact. WCS is licensed by the State of Texas to dispose of Class A, B, and C waste.

63

CONCLUSION New Mexican's, American's deserve much better, than this. So too, does Holtec International and Interim Storage Partners. They expected NRC employees to do their jobs and issue them legal NRC licenses.

Now, to find out, after Holtec filed an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court.

NRC and SwRJ's CNWRA employees committed unprecedented unimaginable violations of NEPA and other laws. One of which is The Major Fraud Act of 1988.

The violations resulted in Holtec International and Interim Storage Partners being issued illegal NRC licenses. NRC licenses they couldn't use.

If Holtec and ISP want to obtain an NRC license for their proposed nuclear waste storage facilities, NRC has to write legal EISs for them. This time with a team of employees who are knowledgeable and experienced in writing EISs. That is, ifNRC will accept their applications for two new nuclear waste storage facilities in a 40-mile area, with two existing nuclear waste storage facilities.

The NRC and SwRl's CNWRA employees-who wrote, reviewed, and approved (1) NRC's illegal 2021 EIS for Interim Storage Partners, and (2) NRC's illegal 2022 EIS for Holtec International-committed fraud. What did they do?

First of all, they tell us they didn't write EISs for Holtec and ISP (see I.E.

and I.F.). Second, they wrote two reports. Third, NRC employees presented, and defended, them as legal EISs to the public and the courts. The Supreme Court can't reinstate Holtec International's illegal NRC license (SNM-2516) issued on May 9, 2023.

The U.S. Department of Justice needs to investigate and prosecute the NRC and SwRI's CNWRA employees, who wrote, reviewed, and approved NRC's illegal 2021 and 2022 EISs. Why? They committed blatant violations of NEPA and other laws. The most unbelievable thing is the fact. NRC and SwRI's CNWRA employees didn't do the simplest thing required of them. They didn't write EISs for Holtec International's and Interim Storage Partners' proposed nuclear waste storage facilities.

Finally, there shouldn't be any place in the United States, with four nuclear waste storage facilities clustered together in a 40-mile area. What's worse, Holtec's and ISP's facilities would store the most dangerous nuclear waste (spent nuclear fuel) transported from dozens of power plants or reactors in the United States.

66

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML24295A075&oldid=3748555"