ML20310A449

Exhibit 4 to Fasken and Pblro Motion for Leave to File New Contention 3

ML20310A449
Person / Time
Site:	HI-STORE
Issue date:	11/05/2020
From:	Fasken Land & Minerals, Ltd, Kanner & Whiteley, Permian Basin Land and Royalty Owners
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
SECY RAS
References
ASLBP 18-958-01-ISFSI-BD01, Holtec International, RAS 55853
Download: ML20310A449 (65)

Text

EXHIBIT 4 New Mexico State Legislature STATE CAPITOL Santa Fe September 22, 2020 VIA EMAIL: Holtec-CISFEIS@nrc.gov; Chairman@nrc.gov Kristine L. Svinicki, Chair United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 RE: Holtec International HI-STORE Consolidated Interim Storage Draft Environmental Impact Statement; Docket ID NRC-2018-0052

Dear Chair Svinicki:

We write to express our opposition to the proposed Holtec International Consolidated Interim Storage (CIS) facility and concerns about the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). This project creates unreasonable health, economic and national security risks for New Mexico and its residents. It would expose many communities to risks during the transportation and storage of high-level radioactive waste. We believe that the scope of the DEIS fails to adequately and reliably assess the risks of this unprecedented proposed project and the many technical variables that exceed national experience. Furthermore, given the impacts of shipping high-level radioactive waste across the country to New Mexico, we are very disappointed by the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) lack of appropriate adequate outreach and public engagement opportunities required by law.

The public engagement webinars, substituted by the NRC for the promised in-person meetings, fall far short of the meaningful participation opportunities essential to many impacted people who lack internet service. We urge the NRC to prolong the DEIS process and convene in-person hearings no earlier than six months after the risks of transmission of COVID-19 have ended.

Our specific concerns of the Holtec proposal and the DEIS include the following.

1. There is no permanent disposal site for the nation's high-level radioactive waste. Under the federal Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, a permanent repository is supposed to be licensed before a federal government CIS

Kristine L. Svinicki September 22, 2020 Page 2 facility can be constructed. It is premature and inappropriate to transport and store this waste in New Mexico or any other state until a permanent national strategy has been developed.

2. The risks and emergency response liability to local communities is significant. According to Holtec and the DEIS, local communities and the State of New Mexico would be responsible for emergency response should an accident occur during transport of the waste. This risk would be doubled when the waste is shipped back out of New Mexico to a permanent repository. This exposure would also exist for other communities and states along the transportation route. It is unacceptable to approve a national plan that does not adequately fund and execute a comprehensive emergency response capability.

3. The NRC cannot predict with complete assurance the safety and performance of the dry casks and canisters for the license period or longer.

The current performance history of this technology is less than the 40-year license period for the proposed Holtec facility.

4. The Holtec HI STORM UMAX canisters, approved only a few years ago by the NRC in 2015, have had problems with design and technology.

These occurrences and lack of proven technology provide a clear warning that the NRC cannot adequately consider the performance limitations and risks of storage of large amounts of high-level radioactive waste in New Mexico for this project.

5. The NRC cannot account for and calculate the risks of unanticipated accidents or performance deficiency. New Mexico has experienced the high costs and risks associated with unplanned events at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.

6. There has not been adequate community outreach for the DEIS. There has been no consent-based citing for this proposal or any proactive interviews with affected communities about its potential impacts. This lack of involvement creates significant concerns regarding the social justice impacts to New Mexicans.

7. Experts are concerned about the inability to repackage this waste on-site, either for shipment to a permanent repository or if there are cracked or corroded canisters.

Kristine L. Svinicki September 22, 2020 Page 3

8. Many New Mexico communities oppose this proposal. In addition to opposition from the governor, the commissioner of public lands and a majority of New Mexico's congressional delegation, local governments representing close to 50% of the population have passed resolutions opposing the CIS facility or the transportation of high-level radioactive waste through their communities, including the following.

Town of Lake Arthur 09/07/17 City of Albuquerque 05/21/18 City of Jal 05/29/18 Bernalillo County 06/12/18 City of Las Cruces 07/23/18 Santa Fe County 09/25/18 City of Gallup 09/25/18 McKinley County 10/02/18 City of Belen 11/10/18 Church Rock Chapter, Navajo Nation 08/15/18 Navajo Nation Diné Uranium Remediation Advisory Commission 11/29/18 All Pueblo Council of Governors, Representing 20 Indigenous Nations 10/17/19 In Texas, local governments representing close to 5.4 million people have passed similar resolutions, including the following.

Bexar County 02/21/17 City of San Antonio 03/30/17 Dallas County 04/4/17

Kristine L. Svinicki September 22, 2020 Page 4 Midland County 04/24/17 Nueces County 12/16 City of Denton 10/16/18 City of Midland 11/13/18 El Paso County 11/18 For these reasons, we respectfully urge the NRC not to issue a license for the Holtec International HI-STORE CIS facility or approve the DEIS.

Sincerely, JEFF STEINBORN PETER WIRTH State Senator, District 36 State Senator, District 25 SHANNON D. PINTO LINDA M. LOPEZ State Senator, District 3 State Senator, District 11 ANTOINETTE SEDILLO LOPEZ MIMI STEWART State Senator, District 16 State Senator, District 17 BILL TALLMAN NANCY RODRIGUEZ State Senator, District 18 State Senator, District 24 ELIZABETH "LIZ" STEFANICS ELISEO LEE ALCON State Senator, District 39 State Representative, District 6

Kristine L. Svinicki September 22, 2020 Page 5 PATRICIA ROYBAL CABALLERO DEBORAH A. ARMSTRONG State Representative, District 13 State Representative, District 17 DEBRA M. SARIÑANA ELIZABETH "LIZ" THOMSON State Representative, District 21 State Representative, District 24 CHRISTINE TRUJILLO ANGELICA RUBIO State Representative, District 25 State Representative, District 35 JOANNE J. FERRARY RODOLPHO "RUDY" S. MARTINEZ State Representative, District 37 State Representative, District 39 ANDREA ROMERO State Representative, District 46 cc: Commissioner Jeff Baran, NRC (via email: CMRBaran@nrc.gov)

Commissioner Annie Caputo, NRC (via email: CMRCaputo@nrc.gov)

Commissioner Christopher T. Hanson, NRC (via email: CMRHanson@nrc.gov)

Commissioner David A. Wright, NRC (via email: CMRWright@nrc.gov)

Jill Caverly, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, NRC (via email:

jill.caverly@nrc.gov)

From: Ortiz-Wertheim, Bianca, DHSEM <Bianca.Ortiz-Wertheim@state.nm.us>

Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 4:28 PM To: Holtec-CISFEIS Resource Cc: Hamilton, Kelly, DHSEM; Kerster, Courtney, GOV; Blackwell, Wendy, DHSEM; Simonson, Adam, DHSEM; Gonzales, Danielle, DHSEM

Subject:

[External_Sender] Docket ID NRC-2018-0052 Attachments: Docket ID NRC-2018-0052 NM DHSEM Comments.pdf Director Tappert, On behalf of the Department of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, I submit the attached comments on the March 2020 draft EIS for the Holtec International license application.

Thank you.

Bianca Ortiz-Wertheim Cabinet Secretary New Mexico Department of Homeland Security and Emergency Management Santa Fe, NM (505) 476-9655 Bianca.ortiz-wertheim@state.nm.us Building Resilience in New Mexico

Federal Register Notice: 85FR16150 Comment Number: 4460 Mail Envelope Properties (07910b9d312a4a8d8571f71bef6e6fce)

Subject:

[External_Sender] Docket ID NRC-2018-0052 Sent Date: 9/22/2020 4:28:25 PM Received Date: 9/22/2020 4:30:13 PM From: Ortiz-Wertheim, Bianca, DHSEM Created By: Bianca.Ortiz-Wertheim@state.nm.us Recipients:

Post Office: MBXCAS006.nmes.lcl Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 490 9/22/2020 4:30:13 PM image001.jpg 2648 Docket ID NRC-2018-0052 NM DHSEM Comments.pdf 1782056 Options Priority: Standard Return Notification: No Reply Requested: No Sensitivity: Normal Expiration Date:

Recipients Received:

From: McQuillan, Dennis, NMENV <dennis.mcquillan@state.nm.us>

Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 5:31 PM To: Holtec-CISFEIS Resource Cc: Kenney, James, NMENV; Kerster, Courtney, GOV; Ely, Sandra, NMENV; Roose, Rebecca, NMENV; Stringer, Stephanie, NMENV; McDill, Teresa, NMENV

Subject:

[External_Sender] Docket ID NRC-2018-0052 Attachments: 2020-09 NMED Holtec draft EIS comments to NRC (Final).pdf

Dear Mr. Tappert,

Please see the attached letter providing New Mexico Environment Department comments on the March 2020 draft Environmental Impact Statement 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.

Sincerely, Dennis McQuillan Science Coordinator New Mexico Environment Department 1190 St. Francis Dr.

PO Box 5469 Santa Fe, NM 87502 505-827-2140 desk 505-660-1592 cell dennis.mcquillan@state.nm.us Visit the NMED Website: www.env.nm.gov Twitter: @NMEnvDep l #IamNMED Science l Innovation l Collaboration l Compliance

Federal Register Notice: 85FR16150 Comment Number: 4490 Mail Envelope Properties (ae5a92909b0f4ec6958c0c43faaafde3)

Subject:

[External_Sender] Docket ID NRC-2018-0052 Sent Date: 9/22/2020 5:31:04 PM Received Date: 9/22/2020 5:31:58 PM From: McQuillan, Dennis, NMENV Created By: dennis.mcquillan@state.nm.us Recipients:

Post Office: MBXCAS005.nmes.lcl Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 749 9/22/2020 5:31:58 PM image001.png 14644 2020-09 NMED Holtec draft EIS comments to NRC (Final).pdf 555536 Options Priority: Standard Return Notification: No Reply Requested: No Sensitivity: Normal Expiration Date:

Recipients Received:

NEW MEXICO ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT Harold Runnels Building 1190 Saint Francis Drive, PO Box 5469 Michelle Lujan Grisham Santa Fe, NM 87502-5469 James C. Kenney Governor Telephone (505) 827-2855 Cabinet Secretary www.env.nm.gov Jennifer J. Pruett Howie C. Morales Lt. Governor Deputy 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; Docket ID NRC-2018-0052 Director Tappert, On behalf of the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED), 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. The attachment includes comments from the New Mexico Radioactive Waste Consultation Task Force as well.

Sincerely, Digitally signed by James Kenney Date: 2020.09.22 14:00:35 -06'00' James C. Kenney Cabinet Secretary Attachment (1) cc: Courtney Kerster, Director of Federal Affairs, Office of Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham Sandra Ely, Director, NMED Environmental Protection Division Rebecca Roose, Director, NMED Water Protection Division Stephane Stringer, Director, NMED Resource Protection Division Science l Innovation l Collaboration l Compliance

Attachment Introduction 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. NRCs proposed action is the issuance of an NRC license authorizing the initial phase (Phase

1) of the project to store up to 8,680 metric tons of uranium (MTUs) [9,568 short tons] in 500 canisters for a license period of 40 years. Holtec plans to subsequently request amendments to the license to store an additional 500 canisters for each of 19 expansion phases of the proposed CISF (a total of 20 phases), to be completed over the course of 20 years, expanding the proposed facility to eventually store up to 10,000 canisters of SNF.

New Mexico has grave concerns about the inadequacy of the technical analysis in the draft EIS. The inadequate conceptualization of the geologically unsuitable site, the preclusion of a thorough evaluation due to vast technical deficiencies, the lack of inclusion of all applicable state regulatory oversite and environmental impact controls, and the omission of a full assessment of environmental justice concerns all contribute to a draft EIS that negligently fails to meet the requirements of Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). New Mexico objects strongly to the recommended action of approving the Holtec CISF License and demands the No Action Alternative.

Comments

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

The NRC stated in its Waste Confidence Decision 1 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.

2. The proposed Holtec Consolidated Interim Storage Facility (CISF) site is geologically unsuitable.

Given that a permanent repository for high-level radioactive waste does not exist in the United States and there is no existing plan to build one, any interim storage facility will be an indefinite storage facility, including Holtecs CISF. The License Life for the application Holtec submitted to the NRC is forty (40) years, 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.

2

and the License Life can be extended at every license renewal date. The Design Life for the storage facility and cask, canisters, and assemblies is eighty (80) years. The Service Life for the SNF storage site is one hundred and twenty (120) years. At this time, the NRC cannot guarantee that a permanent repository for SNF in the United States will be developed in 40, 80, or 120 years, or that the proposed Holtec CISF facility will not become a permanent repository. Even 80 years of storage at the Holtec CISF amounts to impacts beyond the lifetimes of everyone involved in this environmental review and licensing decision.

As early as the 1950s, the National Academy of Sciences recommended disposal of long-lived radioactive wastes in deep, geologically stable formations. Holtec, however, proposes to bury highly radioactive and toxic SNF to a depth of only 50 feet in an area that is underlain by shallow groundwater and subject to concerns about ground subsidence and sinkhole development. Holtecs proposed CISF site does not provide deep geologic isolation for indefinite SNF storage, and the proposed site is unsuitable for SNF storage over a period of decades. Therefore, New Mexico prefers the No Action Alternative. See comment 4 below for further discussion of karst and seismicity.

3. The draft EIS contains numerous technical deficiencies that preclude a thorough evaluation of the radiological and non-radiological environmental impacts of the proposed facility. Resolving technical deficiencies in the draft EIS and properly evaluating, with all available data, the description of the affected environment, waste transportation, waste characterization, potential contaminant release mechanisms and exposure pathways, potential risks from aging SNF canisters, and site monitoring will further support the No Action Alternative.

3.a. The draft EIS fails to provide a conceptual hydrologic site model.

A comprehensive and internally consistent hydrologic conceptual site model that includes precipitation, recharge, surface water, playas, groundwater and springs is lacking in the draft EIS, which contains inconsistent and contradictory statements about groundwater occurring in Quaternary alluvium and in the Santa Rosa Sandstone. A critical omission is that the draft EIS does not define hydraulic relationships between shallow groundwater, springs and playas in the area. The draft EIS does not adequately address groundwater recharge potential of the area within and surrounding the proposed CISF based on the topography, internal and surrounding drainage patterns, exposed bedrock geology, surface and shallow subsurface geology, and karst hydrogeology. Moreover, the draft EIS provides incomplete and contradictory statements about background water quality. Section 3.5.1 of the draft EIS (Surface Water Resources) states that salinity in the playas is attributed to evaporation of water while in Section 3.6.3 of the draft EIS the salinity is attributed to discharges from the oil and gas, and potash industries. The background quality of groundwater, which may be similarly impacted by oil and gas and potash discharges, also is not adequately addressed in the draft EIS.

These deficiencies preclude the complete and thorough evaluation of contaminant release scenarios, the resulting migration and exposure pathways, and potential risks to human and ecological health.

3.b. The draft EIS contains data gaps and erroneous statements.

The draft EIS contains statements that are either incorrect, or internally contradictory. Section 3.5.3 of the draft EIS discusses how the Quaternary piedmont alluvium and Triassic Santa Rosa Sandstone are utilized as water sources in the region, however 3.5.3.2 of the draft EIS incorrectly states, No potable groundwater is known to exist in the vicinity {i.e., within 10 km [6 mi]} of the proposed CISF project area Figure 3.5-5 of the draft EIS shows a number of water wells within two to three miles of the proposed CISF site that are completed in Quaternary or Triassic formations, and some are identified as producing fresh water. The fact that potable groundwater has existed within 6 miles of the proposed CISF project area is confirmed by historical chemical analyses demonstrating that two such wells, located near Halfway southwest of the proposed site produced fresh water (Table 1).

3

Table 1. Chemical Analyses of Water from Supply Wells near Halfway, N.M.

Analyses performed by Southwestern Laboratories on samples collected on 2/12/69.

Water Level Chloride Sulfate Specific Well (feet below (mg/L) (mg/L) Conductance ground surface) (umho/cm)

Halfway Bar 42.5 362 309 1861 Stock Well 39.58 85 82 837 The draft EIS relies on an insufficient number of boreholes and monitoring wells to characterize the lithology, hydrology, and groundwater characteristics below the proposed CISF. The Holtec Environmental Report (Holtec ER), Appendix J, Figure 1, contains a map showing the locations of 29 proposed groundwater monitoring wells that would be installed to provide primary baseline groundwater sampling results, identify potential discontinuous aquifers, and to identify if there is a connection between shallow groundwater at the site and the playa lakes. In a May 21, 2020 meeting, NRC informed NMED that these wells had not been installed. Consequently, this critical data gap precludes a complete and thorough evaluation of groundwater contaminant release scenarios, the resulting migration and exposure pathways, and the resulting risks to human and ecological health. NRC must require that Holtec install these wells and include this new hydrogeologic information in the final EIS.

Statements regarding infiltration of precipitation, infiltration of contaminants discharged in leaks or spills, playa salinity, groundwater recharge, and mechanisms for water loss from playas must be revised for correctness and consistency in the final EIS. The draft EIS, for example, insufficiently and inconsistently addresses the existence and implications of groundwater accumulating in the Quaternary alluvium above the Dockum claystones. The draft EIS asserts that shallow groundwater does not exist at the site, but provides information about the saturated thickness of groundwater in Quaternary alluvium. The Holtec ER also states, Evapo-transpiration at the Site is five times the precipitation rate, indicating that there is little infiltration of precipitation into the subsurface. This statement reflects a lack of understanding of hydrogeologic processes in the arid Southwest and contradicts the statement in Section 4.5.2 of the draft EIS that discusses how significant recharge of precipitation actually does occur during storm events. The draft EIS and supporting documents also are inconsistent regarding which playa will receive surface water flow from the CISF.

The draft EIS fails to accurately measure seasonal variations of playa water levels and resultant subsurface infiltration, an important consideration in the effects of the project. The draft EIS also insufficiently describes the consequences of a significant storm event to the playas. The draft EIS insufficiently addresses surface water infiltration to the subsurface as stormwater transports from the CISF to the playas. Laguna Plata is the recipient of all impacted stormwater and possibly all facility wash-water and indoor spills originating at the CISF. This stormwater and industrial wastewater is proposed to flow in approximately two miles of unlined drainages from the CISF to the playa along which infiltration and contamination of alluvial groundwater may occur.

The final EIS must fill these data gaps and correct these erroneous statements.

3.c. Karst Conditions not Adequately Addressed The draft EIS asserts that the CISF project area has a low potential for sinkhole development based on the absence of thick sections of soluble rock near the land surface. The CISF site, however, is located in an area of well-documented concern for development of both recent anthropogenic and long-term natural 4

geologic karst features such as sinkholes.2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 The draft EIS makes inconsistent statements regarding the origin of topographic depressions in the region, many of which have been attributed to karstic collapse of the land surface in response to underlying salt and evaporite dissolution. Indeed, lithologic borings located within the proposed Holtec facility encountered slickensides, vertical to sub-horizontal fractures of many inches in length, highly fractured zones, and the presence of moisture in core sections in the Chinle Formation. The presence of subsurface deformation, fracture zones and moisture in post-Permian rock contradicts the draft EIS assertion of low risk for sinkhole development.

Oil and gas operations and potash mining also have created ground subsidence and sinkholes in the region. Dissolution of the Salado Formation associated with oil and gas operations is the primary cause of the Jal, J.W.S., Winks 1&2, Denver, and the I&W brine well sinkholes. There are at least 18 abandoned and plugged wells located on the property that could contribute to the formation of sinkholes if the casing on these wells has been compromised. There is one plugged saltwater disposal well located north-east of the property boundary that could contribute to sinkhole formation and potential subsidence. Additionally, ground subsidence related to potash mine workings, as has been documented in the region, must be evaluated in greater detail as a potential risk to the stability of the CISF facility.

3.d. 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.

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. 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 2 Hill, C.A., 1999. "Intrastratal karst at the WIPP site, southeastern New Mexico." Caves and Karst of Southeastern New Mexico. New Mexico Geological Society, 57th Annual Fall Field Conference Guidebook.

3 Powers, D.W., Beauheim, R.L., Holt, R.M., Hughes, D.L. and Land, L., 2006. Evaporite karst features and processes at Nash Draw, Eddy County, New Mexico. Caves and Karst of Southeastern New Mexico. New Mexico Geological Society, Guidebook, 57, pp.253-266.

4 Lorenz, J.C., 2006. Assessment of the Geological Evidence for Karst in the Rustler Formation at the WIPP Site. Caves and Karst of Southeastern New Mexico, 57, p.243.

5 Stafford, K.W., 2013. Evaporite Karst and Hydrogeology of the Castile Formation: Culberson County, Texas and Eddy County, New Mexico. 13th Sinkhole Conference. National Cave and Karst Research Institute Symposium 2.

6 Land, L.E.W.I.S., 2009. Anthropogenic sinkholes in the Delaware Basin region, West Texas and Southeastern New Mexico. West Texas Geological Society Bulletin, 48(6), pp.10-22.

7 Land, L., Cikoski, C., McDraw, D., and G. Veni, 2018. Karst geohazards and geophysical surveys: US 285, Eddy County, New Mexico. National Cave and Karst Research Institute Report of Investigation 7, Carlsbad, New Mexico.

8 Lambert, S.J., 1983. Dissolution of evaporites in and around the Delaware Basin, southeastern New Mexico and west Texas. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Sandia National Laboratories, 82(461).

9 Stafford, K.W., Nance, R., Rosales-Lagarde, L. and Boston, P.J., 2008. Epigene and hypogene karst manifestations of the Castile Formation: Eddy County, New Mexico and Culberson County, Texas, USA. International Journal of Speleology, 37(2), p. 83-98.

5

more powerful seismic events. The sources used for the seismicity section of the draft EIS should include more recent research including the updated model of the reference used for the seismic hazard map and current seismic monitoring by the Texas Bureau of Economic Geology TexNet project and the New Mexico Tech Seismological Observatory.

3.e. 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:

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. 10 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 report 11 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 report12 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 development 13 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, 11.

Additionally, the 2014 GAO report 14 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 10 Spent Nuclear Fuel: Legislative, Technical and Societal Challenges to its Transportation, GAO 16-121 (October 2015), pp. 3-4 11 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 12 GAO-15-141, October 2014, p. 25 Description of Concerns Related to High-Burn Up Fuel 13 High Burnup Dry Storage Cask Research and Development Project, 2014, https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1133392 14 GAO-15-141, October 2014, p. 26 Some Stored Spent Nuclear Fuel May Not Be Readily Transportable 6

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 the licensee, shipper/railroad industry.

3.f. Deficient Waste Characterization The draft EIS fails to provide details of the radionuclides and activities in the spent fuel rods, and only references metric tons of uranium (MTU) in the fuel rods that were originally placed in the nuclear reactors. Spent fuel rods can be much more radioactive than the original fuel rods due to the presence of a mixture of byproducts from uranium fission. Radionuclide activities in spent fuel rods can depend on age, uranium burnup and decay, and the type of reactor that was used.

The draft EIS does not adequately address the differences in SNF storage (pool storage, dry storage or both) at the commercial reactor sites. These differences are important as they may present challenges for SNF processing and storage at the proposed Holtec facility.

The draft EIS fails to discuss non-radiological contaminants that may potentially be discharged to soil, water and air during operation of the site. Without thorough characterization of non-radiological contaminants present, neither the NRC nor the state of New Mexico can properly and effectively eliminate or mitigate potential discharges.

3.g. Deficient Evaluation of Potential Contaminant Release Mechanisms and Exposure Pathways The draft EIS insufficiently and inconsistently addresses the possibility of a release of radionuclides from the CISF and the associated risks or impacts to the environment. Draft EIS Section 4.15 addresses the categories of events or accidents, including off-normal and accidental.

The draft EIS states that off-normal events can be expected to occur with moderate frequency, or approximately once per year, and that these events could result in members of the general public being exposed to additional levels of radiation beyond those associated with normal operations. Off-normal events evaluated include off-normal pressure within a SNF storage canister, off-normal environmental temperature, leakage of an SNF storage canister seal weld, partial blockage of air inlet and outlet ducts in a SNF cask, and cask drop below the design allowable height.

The draft EIS states that accidental events could reasonably be expected to occur over the lifetime of the dry cask storage facility. Accidental events evaluated included fire, partial blockage of SNF storage canister basket vent holes, flood, earthquake, rupture of all fuel rods in a SNF storage canister, confinement boundary release, explosion, lightning, complete blockage of air inlet and outlet ducts, burial under debris, extreme environmental temperature, and cask drop or tip over.

The draft EIS explains that the Applicant evaluated each of these accidents and concluded that the CISF would not exceed applicable 10 CFR 72.106 dose limits to individuals at or beyond the controlled area boundary. The draft EIS does not explain, or is contradictory about, how each of the accident categories might impact environmental media including air, surface water, groundwater, and soil, and does not 7

explain possible impacts both inside and outside the controlled area boundary.

Section 4.5.1 of the draft EIS states that the primary impact of a contaminant release to surface water would be from runoff from the impervious SNF storage pad. Section 4.5.1.1.2 of the draft EIS, however, states that there is no potential for a liquid pathway (such as runoff) to contaminate nearby surface waters with radioactive materials. In addition to being contradictory with regard to off-normal and accidental incidents that might release contaminants to surface water runoff, these statements do not address the possibility that groundwater also might transport contaminants from the proposed storage facility to surface water in nearby playas.

3.h. The draft EIS fails to evaluate potential human and ecological exposure pathways via groundwater.

Any release of contaminants to shallow groundwater at the proposed Holtec CISF site is significant with regard to the potential for contaminants to migrate into water supply wells, springs and playas in the area.

Even if some groundwater contains elevated salinity, the migration of contaminated groundwater to springs and playas could create hazards to public health and the environment. These potential human and ecological exposure pathways must be evaluated.

3.i. 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 07-02, Expectations of Safety and Security of Shipments. 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, Western Governors Association (WGA) Resolution 07-02 calls upon the NRC to fully address the consequences of attacks against all components of the nuclear waste handling and transport system, to include: attacks against transportation infrastructure, the theft of a shipment, use of high-energy explosives against a shipment cask, and direct attacks against a shipment cask using antitank missiles or other armament that could cause a loss of containment. WGA further requests that NRC strengthen its efforts to share information with state and local governments regarding spent fuel shipment vulnerabilities and consequences, recognizing that sharing of information must be conducted within the framework of preventing the release of sensitive or classified information to individuals without a need to know. The 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.

Additionally, 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.

3.j. 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.

3.k. Deficient Site Monitoring SNF contains radionuclides that emit alpha, beta, gamma, and neutron radiation. The monitoring system provided by Holtec must be capable of monitoring the radiation of all radionuclides in SNF.

8

Holtec proposes to use thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) for measuring doses for gamma and beta radiation. TLDs do not measure alpha and neutron radiation in SNF. (e.g., 241 Am, 243 Am, 244 Cm, 238 Pu, 239 Pu, 230 Th, 238 U plus daughters) which is approximately thirty percent of the total activity of a Boiling Water Reactor SNF (spent full assembly - 4.0% enriched with 49,170 MWd/MTU burnup, 10-yr decay). Also, TLDs do not have the capability of measuring static or dynamic radiation doses, which are important in the determination of the radiation dose occurring over a period of time or all at one time.

It is not apparent that the TLDs along the perimeters of the restricted and controlled areas will be sufficient to detect releases of gaseous and particulate isotopes from the facility. In addition to the TLD detection system, continuous radiological air monitors for radioactive isotopes are necessary. These must be located at all potential air emission pathways of the cask transfer building, or any other facility building associated with transportation casks or cannisters, in the event of a cask breach. Continuous air monitors for radioactive isotopes should also be located at the facility perimeter to determine if, in the event of a cask breach, hazardous radiological material has left the site via the air pathway and, consequently, may affect the public. It is also not apparent how the exit air from each vertical ventilated module (VVM) will be collected or managed. The outlet duct of each VVM lid must be equipped with a radiometric detector that can detect radioactive emissions in the event of a cask breach and prevent emissions to the ambient air that may potentially leave the facility boundary. Portable air samplers must be available to facility personnel and used as deemed appropriate. Any exceedance of the dose constraint or periodic reporting on air releases required by the NRC must also be sent to the state of New Mexico for evaluation. With implementation of the NRC constraint rule, the exposures resulting from air effluents are constrained to a level not to exceed 0.1 mSv (10 mrem) in a year.

Holtec states, local radiation monitors with audible alarms to be placed in the canister transfer building but fails to provide the type of monitor (i.e., Holtec does not specify the radiation types that the will monitors detect).

The Holtec radiological environmental monitoring program (REMP), proposes the collection of data during the preoperational years for the CISF project in Lea County, NM. The data collected during the preoperational years will be used to establish baseline radiological information for the proposed site. The data collected would be used in determining and evaluating potential impacts from the operation of the proposed CISF project on the local environment. The REMP would be initiated at least one year before the operations stage. Radionuclides would be identified using technically appropriate analytical instruments (e.g., liquid scintillation or gamma/alpha spectrometry). As previously stated, compliance would be demonstrated through project boundary monitoring and environmental sampling data. Again, Holtec fails to provide the details of the REMP and the minimum detectable activities (MDAs). The testing methods (e.g., liquid scintillation, or gamma/alpha spectrometry), are not defined. Holtec states it will provide a summary report of the environmental sampling program to the NRC each year, with MDAs, and facility-related nuclides found in environmental samples. Holtec should monitor radiation continuously to ensure no airborne release above public dose limits total effective dose equivalent (TEDE), and the results exceeding the TEDE must be reported to the NRC.

Holtec states, external radiological exposure for the public from the operations stage of the proposed CISF project would be from the SNF storage pad through direct shine (i.e., direct radiation). Because the casks are sealed and welded shut, there is no radiological exposure air pathway. An experiment conducted by Sandia National Labs 15 of radionuclides for Pressurized Water Reactor spent fuel determined that the potential release of airborne particles could present a hazard to the public as well as workers in the nuclear facility. The airborne dose per gram of SNF experiment sample rod of spent fuel UO2 is shown in Table 2 below. The dose values in Table 17 indicate exceedance of public dose limits (i.e., two mrem in any one hour), should an accidental release occur.

15 Calculation of the Radionuclides in PWR Spent Fuel Samples for SFR Experiment Planning, Naegeli, 2004, SANDIA REPORT, SAND2004-2757.

9

Table 2. Activity and Airborne Dose per Gram and per Sample Rod of Spent Fuel UO 2 . 16 Holtec states that continuous air monitors, if deemed necessary, would be located in the exhaust of the cask transfer building and also available as portable air samplers. Also, Holtec states there is no requirement for liquid monitoring of SNF because there is no potential for a liquid pathway, and there is no liquid component of SNF casks. Holtec must define how continuous air monitors will be deemed necessary, and continuous monitoring should be clarified to mean using a continuous alpha and beta radiation monitor.

The draft EIS does not contain any provision for groundwater monitoring. This is a critical omission given that shallow groundwater exists at the site; this groundwater must be monitored for any evidence of a release into the subsurface. The draft EIS, 2017 Environmental Report, and Safety Analysis Report (SAR),

Rev. H 17 all acknowledge the presence of discontinuous and variable-depth groundwaters at the proposed CISF site and the potential for shallow groundwaters in the vicinity that may be controlled by playa lake levels. Despite three current groundwater monitoring wells and the need for additional groundwater characterization as specified in the SAR, Rev. H, and as noted in the CIS Facility Environmental Report, baseline groundwater monitoring, sampling, and testing will be performed prior to construction of the facility in order to establish baseline measurements, the Surface Water and Groundwater Monitoring subsection within Section 7.3 of the draft EIS specifies no groundwater monitoring and fails to mention the applicants planned 12-month groundwater characterization study which includes additional monitoring wells.

Soil and Sediment Monitoring: Quarterly soil sampling conducted in surface-water drainage areas coupled with weekly and monthly radiological surveys on the casks and storage pad would be conducted.

Holtec must clearly state and describe in detail what analysis will be performed.

Leakage Testing: Holtec states, the confinement boundary is leak tested with a helium mass spectrometer leak detector in accordance with ANSI N14.5. The MPC design helium leak rate is 5 x 10-6 atm-cm3/sec helium. The applicant committed to using an MSLD with a sensitivity of 2.5 x 10-6 atm-cm3/sec. The leak testing in accordance with ANSI N14.5 is for transportation and is not applicable to the storage of SNF at the site.

4. The draft EIS is significantly incomplete without inclusion of all applicable state regulatory oversight and environmental impact controls.

The draft EIS does not adequately and thoroughly address hazardous waste; in particular, it contains incomplete information on the processes generating this waste, its management, and the identification of the potential circumstances that might result in its release to the environment. Section 2.2.1.6 (Emissions, Waste Generation, Transportation) of the draft EIS states, [f]or the proposed CISF, hazardous waste produced would primarily occur from the use of chemicals or other solvents. Hazardous waste would include any leaks resulting in spills of oil from operating equipment, or stormwater runoff carrying grease.

16 NRC, Characteristics for the Commercial Spent Fuel Assembly for Preclosure Normal Operations, 2007, Table 17.

17 https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1916/ML19163A062.pdf 10

Spills of oil and grease in New Mexico do not usually constitute a hazardous waste and are instead considered a special waste with unique regulatory requirements. The draft EIS states that oil and grease discharges would be managed under the NPDES permit requirements, yet there are no specific requirements in either the Construction General Permit or Multi-Sector General Permit for oil and grease for these potential sectors in stormwater. In addition, based on NMEDs experience with construction projects, the Department is surprised by the statement in the draft EIS that hazardous wastes are not anticipated to be generated during construction. Table 2.2-3. of the draft EIS does not address a drain system in either the Cask Transfer Building or the Storage Building and does not address where that drain system would discharge. NMED considers the possible mismanagement of hazardous waste to pose a substantial threat to the environment, including groundwater and surface water, and therefore requires a thorough evaluation in the final EIS. As the draft EIS does not describe management of hazardous waste, NMED is concerned about these materials ending up in stormwater that leaves the facility.

The playas are regulated Surface Waters of the State and subject to Water Quality Standards at 20.6.4 New Mexico Administrative Code (NMAC) promulgated under New Mexicos Water Quality Act. 18 Before operation, the facility would be required to submit a Notice of Intent to Discharge to the NMED pursuant to 20.6.2.1201 NMAC. The draft EIS fails to describe any measures Holtec will take during facility construction and operation to mitigate or treat stormwater and other discharges from the facility prior to discharge into the playas. Section 4.5.1.1.1 (Construction Impacts).

5. The Proposed Action threatens minority and low-income populations in 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.

The Proposed Action for indefinite storage of commercial spent nuclear fuel joins the ranks of uranium mining and milling, legacy contamination at national laboratories, and disposal of defense waste at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), all of which have long presented risks to public health and the environment in the State of New Mexico that are disproportionately greater than such risks to the general population of the United States.

The draft EIS discusses the proportions of New Mexico population that are Hispanic, Latino or American Indian, as well as state residents living in low-income or poverty conditions. New Mexicos percentages of these minority and low-income populations are significantly greater than in the United States general population (Table 3).

Table 3. New Mexico and United States Demographics.

Demographic United States New Mexico Hispanic or Latino 18.3% 49.1%

American Indian 1.3% 10.9%

Persons in poverty 11.8% 19.5%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts:

https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045219 Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority and Low-Income Populations, February 11, 1994, stated that . each Federal agency shall make achieving environmental 18 Sections 74-6-1 et seq. NMSA 1978.

11

justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionally high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations of the United States. 19 The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) issued Environmental Justice Guidance under NEPA on December 10, 1997, that stated, Agencies should consider the composition of the affected area, to determine whether minority populations, low-income populations, or Indian tribes are present in the area affected by the proposed action, and if so whether there may be disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations, low-income populations, or Indian tribes. 20 On August 24, 2004, NRC issued a Policy Statement on the Treatment of Environmental Justice Matters in NRC Regulatory and Licensing Actions that stated, NRC believes that an analysis of disproportionately high and adverse impacts needs to be done as part of the agency's NEPA obligations to accurately identify and disclose all significant environmental impacts associated with a proposed action. 21 The draft EIS makes repeated, yet unsubstantiated, assertions that the Proposed Action will result in no disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects. Given the geologic unsuitability of the proposed site, and the numerous other technical deficiencies as discussed above however, the draft EIS fails to demonstrate that residents of New Mexico, including vulnerable populations, will be adequately protected from exposure to the radioactive and toxic contaminants that could be released to air and water by the Proposed Action.

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. 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 NMED and EMNRD support the No Action Alternative.

6. 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.

7. 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 19 https://www.archives.gov/files/federal-register/executive-orders/pdf/12898.pdf 20 https://ceq.doe.gov/docs/ceq-regulations-and-guidance/regs/ej/justice.pdf 21 https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/FR-2004-08-24/04-19305 12

Hazardous Materials Act 22 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.

7.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 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

dŽŽ-^Ž-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.

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

The draft EIB 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.

7.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 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 WIPP 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 and prepared to address any transportation accidents or releases from Holtecs CISF.

7.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. New Mexico questions this reference, and seeks a citation to the 22 Sections 74-4A-2 through 74-4A-14 NMSA 1978.

13

particular ICRP publication referenced.

7.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 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 be funded to the fullest extent. 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.

7.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.

7.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. 7.2 The draft EID 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.

14

From: Kerster, Courtney, GOV <Courtney.Kerster@state.nm.us>

Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 8:30 PM To: Holtec-CISFEIS Resource

Subject:

[External_Sender] Docket ID NRC-2018-0052, Governor Lujan Grisham Attachments: John Tappert Signature.pdf Please see the attached comments from Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham on Docket ID NRC-2018-0052.

Thank you, Courtney Courtney Kerster Director of Federal Affairs Office of Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham 444 North Capitol St NW, Suite 411 Washington DC 20001 Office: 202-624-3667 Cell: 505-690-7964 courtney.kerster@state.nm.us

Federal Register Notice: 85FR16150 Comment Number: 4549 Mail Envelope Properties (528c4ca7bd4746b4a3544317a64f036d)

Subject:

[External_Sender] Docket ID NRC-2018-0052, Governor Lujan Grisham Sent Date: 9/22/2020 8:30:01 PM Received Date: 9/22/2020 8:30:23 PM From: Kerster, Courtney, GOV Created By: Courtney.Kerster@state.nm.us Recipients:

Post Office: MBXCAS002.nmes.lcl Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 360 9/22/2020 8:30:23 PM John Tappert Signature.pdf 151831 Options Priority: Standard Return Notification: No Reply Requested: No Sensitivity: Normal Expiration Date:

Recipients Received:

From: Biernoff, Ari <abiernoff@slo.state.nm.us>

Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 7:38 PM To: Holtec-CISFEIS Resource

Subject:

[External_Sender] Public Comment - Holtec International HI-STORE, Docket ID NRC-2018-0052 Attachments: CPL Comment Letter Final.pdf Please see the attached public comment letter in this matter from New Mexico Commissioner of Public Lands Stephanie Garcia Richard.

Yours, Ari Biernoff General Counsel 505.827.5756 New Mexico State Land Office 310 Old Santa Fe Trail P.O. Box 1148 Santa Fe, NM 87504-1148 abiernoff@slo.state.nm.us nmstatelands.org

• • Due to COVID-19, State Land Office facilities are closed to the public until further notice. Business operations remain open and our staff can be reached at (505) 827-5760 or www.nmstatelands.org/contact.

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE - This e-mail transmission, including all documents, files, or previous e-mail messages attached hereto, may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you must not read this transmission and that any disclosure, copying, printing, distribution, or use of any of the information contained in and/or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender and delete the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. Thank you.

This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.

For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com

Federal Register Notice: 85FR16150 Comment Number: 4527 Mail Envelope Properties (c49cf430eff6441384c435cfe95b1420)

Subject:

[External_Sender] Public Comment - Holtec International HI-STORE, Docket ID NRC-2018-0052 Sent Date: 9/22/2020 7:37:59 PM Received Date: 9/22/2020 7:38:43 PM From: Biernoff, Ari Created By: abiernoff@slo.state.nm.us Recipients:

Post Office: slo.state.nm.us Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 1693 9/22/2020 7:38:43 PM image001.jpg 44522 image003.jpg 4733 CPL Comment Letter Final.pdf 2397999 Options Priority: Standard Return Notification: No Reply Requested: No Sensitivity: Normal Expiration Date:

Recipients Received:

Stephanie Garcia Richard COMMISSIONERS COMMISSIONER State of New Mexico OFFICE Phone (505) 827-5760 Commissioner of Public Lands Fax (505) 827-5766 www.nmstatelands.org 310 OLD SANTA FE TRAIL P.O. BOX 1148 SANTA FE, NEW MEXICO 87504-1148 September 22, 2020 Via electronic mail (Holtec-CISFEIS@nrc.gov)

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Program Management, Announcements and Editing Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Re: Holtec International HI-STORE, Docket ID NRC-2018-0052

Dear Commissioners:

This comment is submitted in response to the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commissions (NRC) solicitation of public comment regarding Holtec Internationals (Holtec) application to build and operate a nuclear waste storage facility in New Mexico. See 85 Fed. Reg. 16150 (March 20, 2020); 85 Fed. Reg. 23382 (April 27, 2020); 85 Fed. Reg. 37964 (June 24, 2020).

Holtecs proposed project is problematic for many reasons. The intended site is located in the middle of the Permian Basin, one of the worlds most productive oil and gas regions. Nearly 2,500 oil, gas, and mineral wells or sites are operated by 54 different businesses or entities within a 10 mile radius of the proposed site. Locating a nuclear storage site above active oil, gas, and mining operations raises serious safety concerns.

Holtec has falsely claimed to have secured agreements from oil and gas operators at or around the site to restrict these activities, specifically assuring the NRC that oil and gas drilling will only occur at depths greater than 5,000 feet. However, there are no such agreements containing these restrictions in place with oil and gas lessees at the project site or the State Land Office. One agreement has been made with Intrepid Mining LLC, a potash mining company, but that agreement has not been approved, as required by that companys lease terms, by the New Mexico State Land Office (State Land Office).

Given the State Land Offices mineral ownership of the land and the lack of restrictions on mineral development at the site, any claim that activities at the site have been limited is incorrect.

Holtecs submissions to the NRC, including the companys Facility Environmental Report and

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docket ID NRC-2018-0052 Page 2 Safety Analysis Report, include statements that have the potential, intended or not, to mislead federal regulators as they consider the safety implications of the proposal. In addition, two State Land Office lessees on or immediately adjacent to the site, COG Operating, LLC and EOG Resources, Inc., previously raised significant concerns about the proposed project at the land use restriction that Holtec requires, particularly its implications for salt water disposal wells, pipelines, and horizontal wells underneath the site that Holtec might determine - using unknown criteria -

will disturb or conflict with its storage operations. (See Exhibit A, attached). Both companies advise that they will explore all legal options if the State Land Office were to impose a restriction on oil and gas activities permitted under their current leases, along the lines of what Holtec seeks.

A third State Land Office lessee near the intended nuclear waste site is separately submitting a public comment letter to NRC outlining its concerns.

Holtec actually proposes a de facto permanent storage site for nuclear waste shipped from operating, decommissioning, and decommissioned reactors across the country. Considering the initial and planned expansions, it is unlikely to actually serve only as an interim facility. In addition, the proposed location, in one of the worlds top producing oil and gas regions, could have an adverse impact on one of New Mexicos key economic engines.

The nuclear waste storage/disposal application also raises significant issues with respect to transportation safety, among other concerns; however, the State Land Offices comments herein are primarily focused on errors, omissions, and unfounded assumptions in the draft Environmental Impact Statement relating to material legal, financial, environmental, and safety considerations that have a significant bearing on the proposed project.

New Mexico State Land Office The New Mexico State Land Office is an independent state agency responsible for administering around nine million acres of surface and 13 million acres of subsurface estate for the beneficiaries of the state land trust, which include public schools, universities, hospitals and other important public institutions. New Mexico acquired many of these lands, known as state trust lands, under federal legislation (the Ferguson Act of 1898 and the Enabling Act of 1910),

with additional lands obtained through subsequent conveyances and exchanges.

As New Mexicos Commissioner of Public Lands, it is my duty to optimize revenue for New Mexico schoolchildren and other beneficiaries while protecting the long-term health of state trust lands for future generations. By leasing state trust lands for a wide variety of uses, including farming and ranching, renewable energy, and oil and gas development, the State Land Office generates hundreds of millions of dollars each year to support the trust beneficiaries.

The State Land Office manages significant land resources in Lea County in the southeast part of the state, where Holtecs proposed nuclear waste storage facility would be located. In many instances, the State Land Office controls both surface and mineral estate, and in other instances only one or the other estate. The State Land Office, on behalf of its trust beneficiaries, controls the mineral estate at the site of Holtecs proposed waste facility.

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docket ID NRC-2018-0052 Page 3 The Proposed Nuclear Waste Facility Holtec seeks regulatory approval from NRC to store metal canisters containing between 5,000 and more than 100,000 metric tons of highly radioactive waste gathered from nuclear facilities across the United States. See United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, NUREG-2237, Environmental Impact Statement for the Holtec Internationals License Application for a Consolidated Interim Storage Facility for Spent Nuclear Fuel and High Level Waste - Draft Report for Comment (DEIS) at 1-1, 2-1. The intended site for Holtecs proposed nuclear waste facility is located in Section 13, Township 20 South, Range 32 East, Section 13, and portions of Section 17 and 18, Township 20 South, Range 33 East, between the cities of Hobbs and Carlsbad, in Lea County near its boundary with Eddy County (the Site). See DEIS at 2-2, DEIS Fig. 2-2.1.

While Holtec is seeking authorization to store nuclear waste at the Site for a minimum of 40 years, DEIS at xxii, 1-2, it has made clear its intention to keep waste at the Site for more than a century. DEIS at 2-2 (noting that Holtec has indicated that it may seek to renew the license for two additional renewal periods of up to 40 years each for a total of up to 120 years). Holtec has publicly stated that it expects to break ground on the site by 2021 and to accept the first shipment of nuclear waste by 2023, for which it already has booked orders. By Holtecs own estimates, the nuclear waste that it intends to acquire would remain in Lea County until 2048 at the earliest, and the company acknowledges that there is no designated permanent repository anywhere in the nation for high-level nuclear waste. DEIS at 1-2, 2-21. The company also has advertised that the Lea County site is large enough to receive all of the used nuclear fuel that currently exists in the entire United States.

Holtecs Misrepresentations About Site Ownership and Control NRC should be aware that Holtec consistently has misrepresented its prospective ownership and control of the Site. The DEIS incorrectly states that the proposed project area is privately owned by the Eddy-Lea Energy Alliance LLC. DEIS at 2-2. While the surface estate is privately owned, the mineral estate remains the property of the State of New Mexico, held in trust and managed by the State Land Office. 1 This is not a technicality; there are real consequences that follow from Holtecs misrepresentations; despite the fact that the Site mineral estate is owned and held in trust by the State Land Office, the agency was not consulted by the NRC. See DEIS at iii, 2-29. Instead, the DEIS relies on incorrect and misleading statements made by Holtec that the State Land Office previously noted in its June 19, 2019 letter to the company and NRC (attached as Exhibit B). Had the State Land Office been properly consulted as part of this process, it would have provided NRC staff with accurate information relating to the project site and existing and potential mineral estate activities.

Of great concern to me, Holtec claims that it is in discussions with the New Mexico State Land Office regarding an agreement to retire potash leasing and mining within the proposed project area, DEIS at 4-4, 5-24. This statement is false. The DEIS does not indicate any 1

The DEIS elsewhere acknowledges that [l]and surrounding the proposed project area is either privately-owned or owned by the BLM or the State of New Mexico . The State of New Mexico owns the subsurface property rights within the proposed project area. DEIS at 3-2. The DEIS conclusions, however, are based on the incorrect assumption that Holtec (through Eddy-Lea Energy Alliance LLC, with whom it may have an agreement not disclosed in the record) controls the Site.

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docket ID NRC-2018-0052 Page 4 analysis by NRC of actual control of mineral resources at the Site, instead simply accepting Holtecs misrepresentation as true.

Impairment of State Trust Mineral Resources Holtec has claimed in the past, and the DEIS accepts as true, that the State Land Office and its lessees will limit development of mineral resources to accommodate Holtecs intended use of the Site for nuclear waste storage and disposal. As noted above, Holtec is not in discussions with the State Land Office to limit mineral exploration and production at the site.

Oil and Gas Development Additionally, as the NRC acknowledges, DEIS at 3-6, the proposed nuclear waste facility is in an area of active oil and gas development. Holtec claims that its nuclear waste facility will have no impact on oil and gas exploration and development in the proposed project area because extraction will occur at depths greater than 930 m [3,050 ft]. DEIS at 4-6. While oil and gas production frequently takes place in deeper formations, the DEIS simply assumes without discussion that no shallower development can occur now or in the future. State Land Office oil and gas leases, whose terms are prescribed by the New Mexico Legislature, do not impose any depth restrictions on oil and gas development. NRCs actions to approve Holtecs nuclear waste facility, as contemplated by the DEIS, thus could directly impair both the State Land Offices enjoyment of the full benefit of its mineral rights as well as contractual rights afforded to its oil and gas lessees.

Relying on statements made by Holtec, the DEIS finds that construction of the proposed CISF would not have an effect on oil and gas operations within the proposed project area and that the company has no plans to use any of the plugged and abandoned wells. DEIS at 4-4. This determination is based on incorrect information and unfounded assumptions.

First, this is not an assurance the company can make. The State Land Office leases the Sites mineral estate for oil and gas development. Holtec does not own, lease, or have any control whatsoever over the development of the mineral estate. The State Land Office has active oil and gas leases in the project area, which contain provisions that are intended to facilitate the extraction of oil and gas resources and generate royalties for the public schools. Oil and gas operations are conducted as deemed appropriate by the lessees, as long as the activities are in accordance with the lease terms, State Land Office rules and Oil Conservation Division regulations. These leases are held by production and may remain active for decades to come. Holtec has no authority to dictate what does or does not occur with respect to oil and gas mineral estate development.

Second, the DEIS incorrectly assumes that should oil and gas activities occur, they will not interfere with the project because oil and gas resources will be accessed through off-site drill islands and at depths below 3,000 feet. DEIS at 3-8, 4-5. While it may be true that targets exist at depths between 3,000 and 16,000 feet and the Belco Tetris Shallow and Belco Deep drill islands could provide an offsite location for wells, there is no assurance that this would occur. The State Land Offices oil and gas lease terms are set by statute and do not contain any depth limitations.

By law and contract, oil and gas lessees are able to explore and develop resources at any depth.

Even assuming the State Land Office desired to restrict mineral development to certain depths, it

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docket ID NRC-2018-0052 Page 5 would be subject to potential lawsuits for conflict with the statutory lease. (See Exhibit A).

Additionally, the DEIS does not consider what environmental and safety impacts might reasonably manifest if oil and gas operations did occur at shallower depths Potash Mining As the DEIS notes, potash mining is a major part of the Eddy and Lea County economies.

DEIS at 5-24. Potash deposits in the immediate vicinity of the Site are considerable. Potash extraction takes place at depths shallower than 3,000 feet, DEIS at 3-9, so the DEIS conclusion that mineral development at the Site will not be impaired by the nuclear waste facility because such development will occur deeper than 3,000 feet, DEIS at 4-6, does not logically follow.

The DEIS recognizes that the project proposal may interfere with potash mineral extraction activities at the Site but views the impact as minor considering that there are other available resources in the region. This conclusion fails to consider that the State Land Office, as the trustee of the mineral estate, is obligated to get revenue from the mineral estate that it owns for the trust beneficiary assigned to that specific tract of land, in this case the states public schools. It does not matter that resources exist elsewhere, because the State Land Offices federal and state mandate is to generate money from all the lands it manages. The DEIS notes that potash demand is likely to increase over time with increased mining over the next 20-30 years, DEIS at 5-2, and with the potential potash resources at the site worth millions of dollars, abandoning the opportunity to develop these resources would result in a significant loss of revenue for public schools.

Furthermore, the DEIS relies on Holtecs incorrect assumption that it will be able to restrict existing and future potash mining in the area. The DEIS notes that Holtec has asserted that [t]he New Mexico State Land Office is currently in discussions with Holtec International regarding an agreement in principle to retire any potash, unencumbered by regulatory restrictions, in perpetuity. DEIS at 4-4. Discussions Holtec may have had with the previous Commissioner of Public Lands did not result in the issuance of any land use restriction, Holtec is not currently in discussions with me or my staff about such restrictions, and I have made clear that I do not intend to issue any such restrictions.

Additionally, the EIS found that Holtec has entered into an agreement with Intrepid to relinquish certain potash mineral rights to the State of New Mexico. DEIS at 4-4. This statement is misleading in several respects. First, any agreement to relinquish a State Land Office lease for the benefit of a third party would require the approval of the Commissioner. NMAC 19.2.3.18.

This has not occurred. Second, if the lease were simply relinquished by Intrepid back to the State Land Office, the potash resource would again be subject to leasing by another company.

Regardless, the approval of the Commissioner is legally required. As such, the safety and environmental assessments that have been conducted so far rely on the mistaken assumption that future potash leasing will not occur in the project area. 2 NRCs conclusion that Holtecs proposal will have no meaningful impacts on potash development at the Site thus is premised on incorrect or incomplete assumptions.

2 See, e.g., DEIS, Section 5.4, Geology and Soils, noting that because Holtec has entered into an agreement with Intrepid and previously discussed a leasing restriction with a prior Commissioner of Public Lands, the risk of soil subsidence from potash mining was low.

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docket ID NRC-2018-0052 Page 6 Other Mineral Development State Land Office control of the Sites mineral estate is not limited to oil, gas, and potash, but encompasses all mineral resources, including caliche, sand, gravel, and other substances. See DEIS at 3-6 (Mineral extraction in the area of the proposed project area consists of underground potash mining and oil and gas extraction, and noting active State Land Office mineral leases). As the DEIS notes, the Site is located in an area of dense caliche deposits, DEIS at 3-4, 3-18, and nearby there is active sand, gravel, and quarry stone mining for various purposes, including roads and other infrastructure to support renewable energy projects in the area. DEIS at 5-24, 5-25. In addition to exercising control over mineral resources at the Site, the State Land Office is entitled to access and utilize surface lands to facilitate mineral development; [a]s holder of the dominant estate, a mineral owner has the right to use the land, both surface and subsurface, absent an express limitation, as is reasonably necessary to enjoy its property rights. XTO Energy, Inc. v. Armenta, 2008-NMCA-078, ¶ 10, 144 N.M. 212. The DEIS does not take any of these considerations into account, particularly the State Land Offices (and its lessees) right to access and utilize the Sites surface for mineral development purposes.

Inadequate Cost-Benefit Analysis Holtec has not been forthcoming about the possible conflict between nuclear waste storage and current or future oil and gas development at the Site. The International Atomic Energy Agency appears top share my and State Land Office lessees concerns about the interaction between nuclear waste storage and preexisting oil and gas development on the very same tract of land. In a 2007 publication, that agency explained that [a]ny potential site will require an adequately controlled single-use land area to accommodate storage facilities, and that potential waste disposal sites should avoid land with exploitable mineral and energy resources.

International Atomic Energy Agency, Selection of Away-From-Reactor Facilities for Spent Fuel Storage: A Guidebook, IAEA-TECDOC-1558 (Sept. 2007) at 3.2.2 (pp. 23-24) (emphases added).

Despite Holtecs assurances, it does not appear that the company - or the NRC, through the DEIS

- has undertaken a thorough and critical analysis of the potential conflicts between nuclear waste storage and the vital economic activities that are already taking place on the Site.

The DEIS does not capture the full potential costs of the proposed project. It fails to consider the economic cost to the state and region if there were an accident that impacts the ability of companies to work in one of the most productive oil producing regions in the world. Any production decline related to a work stoppage could be hugely detrimental to the states finances, which is heavily dependent on oil and gas taxes and revenues, as well as local economies. It also fails to recognize the potential negative revenue impact to the states public schools if restrictions were put in place limiting mineral extraction at the Site.

Additionally, the DEIS does not consider the potential serious legacy costs of an accident.

If the mineral estate were to become contaminated, the ability of the State Land Office to generate revenue from the Site and nearby areas could be severely limited or rendered impossible. A radioactive mineral estate could also result in vast remediation costs, which could fall on taxpayers and trust land beneficiaries.

For all the reasons stated above, I strongly urge the NRC to adopt the No-Action

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docket ID NRC-2018-0052 Page 7 Alternative and to not issue the proposed license to Holtec. I appreciate your attention to these issues. Please let me know if you have any questions or need any additional information from the State Land Office.

Sincerely, Stephanie Garcia Richard Commissioner of Public Lands

Enclosures:

June 12 and 14, 2019 Oil and Gas Lessee Letters (Exhibit A)

June 19, 2019 State Land Office Letter to Holtec (Exhibit B)

(;+,%,7$

    
 

  
          


 



gºDHHBEU

    > >  >

\¿³³©©¿º¿p-©iº uÂ¥ ©c©?t©¥?

p'o([¿EENT u?º?alkSRQBN FEOT YغVY©[©'¿cº?-\¿Ü1/4-?©¿X+/-¿)?*º¸)

> ,'5> *53*5%-*(>03,0,4>*7'3>945> &(&5=>&*>>,7+6
>9>:&,>

v¥?º á¿ á¿É - ? k?á KD HBDU ¥
ix  ¿º©º¢ e¿- fº'?©¿º?-

e¿+/- ÿ¿?² ¿ ©- ? º+/-?É ? ¿?£ ©+/-©á ©º u©¿º EL w¿º¥©Â HB u¿¥

r ¢KI ]? ?ºu©¿º DR?ºDTx¿º¥©ÂHCu¿¥rº¢LL ^?lkqki?\¿1/4á

lk©¿+\odoÂx©º¢ ih\ \¿º¥¿ ©¥°¿¿¿mk©¿u?iº o uioi?m¿,lB!HRRB"BBH¥©¥¿¥ }@J u_AP ¿u©¿ºFK y¿º¥©Â HB u¿¥ sº¢ MH`??¿?+/-¿NTC ?- \¿º¥¿ © ¿ÂÇ?¿ ¿¥e ¿º u? ~--l¿. F

°¿? ©º zº© l ¿u©¿º GK ¥©¥ ¿ ³ ¥ k¿¿ ɹ?©¿º/ y¥ ix <<

\¿º¥¿¿¿³³º¿º?º³©-?¿x§e¿-¿¿?-?

\¿º¥¿ ¿Â©¿©á©¥?á¿¥º©¿º³º¿³Â+/-¿á?ºx¿³³º©©©º©¥

-© ¿¬0 f³Â?¿\¿º¥¿ ¿Â?©¿º?-¿?©
©?º¿º¿\¿º¥¿* ~¥©-

e¿- © ?ÂÂ-᩺  ? NB#á? Â3/4© ¿³ ¥ {,u, m+/- r-?¿â \¿³³©©¿>> ¿

³Â¿É?É+/-á¿¥©£¥$+/--?©¿?©º-?©Â+/-?º¿¿©ºu¿¥nk©¿ ©

?³©©¥ ©º©º¿Â3/4?ººÂ¿©¿â1 v¥\¿º¥¿ ³¿º©¿xx¨ ¥¿Éx

?º°¿º£$3/4©µÂ?¿¥º©¿1/2º¿Â-*³º©©?º¿Âx©¿º(

fºÃ¿º¿¥-£?-©?©©º¥ix\¿º¥¿¿x¥?xuio ?¥¿©á¿º

¥ +/-?º É©©¿º ¿ ¿º©©¿º izr\ Å á e° © º-?2 Z©- EL

p¢É?Â¥H¿¥l3k4\¿º©©¿ºÂ¿©W v§¿¸³©©¿º¿Â-©-º¥?+/-+/-+/--¿?-?©?º¥?¥©©¿º¿ºÚ¿+/-

º ©Â¿©©¿º ¿?-+/- Â-© -º7*3> 5#> 13,8%4&,*4> ,> 5#> 54> ,> -*"344>

3(5&*!>5#35.>*>47$>3"7'5&-*4>4>);>>23/8%><>'9>

³Â¥©?

YÃ+/-©?+/-?ºÉ-¿º³Â+/-?³+/-©Â+/-ÂÉ©¿¥ - ?º?5 b¿

³Â² ¥ uio¶?á ?º ??©¿º¿©-º¢?- ©¥ ÿ?¥ ¿Â?©¿º¨?

¿º©©¥¥?©+/-©xá¿¿º¿©-º¢?¿Ã?©¿º6FU7H8EBB9QUmkY\1w¥ujo³?á?

??£³©-©?á¿¿Qá?Ñ'EU:H;ECB1QNlkY\< y¥3/4¿¿©°º£-?

© á ¥ uio ? © á ? ?º ¥ ³  ?+/- ¿ ?³º á ¥ ?

+/-¢©-?4
 DU FB%N=D&N-LlkY\> Y£?©º ¥ - ¿© ¿ ¿¥? ?º

-Ya^Yb*m7w+23c8fgw 
B9wZABG.7w

[U:w/[V0F[w1:Wn:dwHw wt;hnwIPROU\Iiw,s<Xr=wJwSK4Q,U5wo>u,jw")# w 'w^,k:]w 6>w_@e,Qp,wLwl,Vq,wC>
wV?twT>uI/[w($ w

` w!'&wMw D w '& w vw%'w'wNw Ew' 'w

EXHIBIT B

From: Henkels, Max <mhenkels@nmda.nmsu.edu>

Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 5:23 PM To: Holtec-CISFEIS Resource Cc: Maitland, Julie

Subject:

[External_Sender] Comment Letter for Holtec International CISF Project, Docket No. NRC-2018-0052 Attachments: 09222020_NMDA Holtec Letter- Final.pdf To Whom it May Concern:

New Mexico Department of Agriculture submits the following comment letter (see attachment) in response to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissions Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Holtec International HI-STORE Consolidated Interim Storage Facility (CISF) Project, Docket No. NRC-2018-0052-0300.

If there is any issue, please contact Max Henkels at mhenkels@nmda.nmsu.edu or 575-339-5052.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment, Max Henkels Natural Resource Policy/Planning Analyst New Mexico Department of Agriculture Work Cell: 575.339.5052 Confidentiality Notice: New Mexico has a very broad public records law. Most written communications to or from state employees are public records. Your e-mail communications may therefore be subject to public disclosure. This e-mail, including all attachments is for the sole use of the intended recipients. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited unless specifically provided under the New Mexico Inspection of Public Records Act.

Federal Register Notice: 85FR16150 Comment Number: 4484 Mail Envelope Properties (e8b1ac0eb8f04faa8bf6145a6b2ed3aa)

Subject:

[External_Sender] Comment Letter for Holtec International CISF Project, Docket No. NRC-2018-0052 Sent Date: 9/22/2020 5:23:05 PM Received Date: 9/22/2020 5:23:14 PM From: Henkels, Max Created By: mhenkels@nmda.nmsu.edu Recipients:

Post Office: EX2013-P1.ACN.ad.nmsu.edu Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 1137 9/22/2020 5:23:14 PM 09222020_NMDA Holtec Letter- Final.pdf 215513 Options Priority: Standard Return Notification: No Reply Requested: No Sensitivity: Normal Expiration Date:

Recipients Received:

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE STATE OF NEW MEXICO MSC 3189, Box 30005 Las Cruces, New Mexico 88003-8005 Telephone (575) 646-3007 MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM JEFF M. WITTE Governor 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 To Director Tappert:

New Mexico Department of Agriculture (NMDA) submits the following comments in response to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissions (NRC) Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Holtec International HI-STORE Consolidated Interim Storage Facility (CISF)

Project, Docket No. NRC-2018-0052-0300.

Part of NMDAs role is to advocate proactively on behalf of New Mexicos agricultural communities and the natural resources that sustain them. The agricultural sector contributes over

$3.7 billion to the New Mexicos economy and supports over 40,000 individual farmers and ranchers. 1 These producers livelihoods depend on the protection and wise stewardship of New Mexicos land and water.

The establishment of the CISF would have a profound impact on agricultural producers in southeastern New Mexico. Lea and Eddy Counties contain over 3 million acres of farm and ranch land, which contribute nearly 300 million dollars to the local economy each year.1 The 1

New Mexico Agricultural Statistics 2018 Annual Bulletin. USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service.

John Tappert, Director CISF Project Draft EIS September 22, 2020 Page 2 local human population may be low, but the two counties are home to nearly 140,000 head of beef and dairy cattle.

The CISF location is surrounded by productive rangeland. While the proposed projects footprint may seem minor to outside planners, it places a major burden on local producers impacted by the construction of the CISF and the accompanying transportation infrastructure.

Construction would disrupt grazing operations on neighboring public lands and reduce forage through the spread of noxious weeds. In addition, a spent nuclear fuel storage facility will reduce property values in the vicinity, instantly devaluing one of agricultural producers main assets. This draft EIS fails to address this economic factor in the analysis and offers no compensation or even consideration of these costs to local farmers and ranchers.

Concerns have also been raised related to collaborative land management work in the state on the Restore New Mexico initiative, which has treated over 41,000 acres for noxious weeds in southeastern New Mexico. The Restore New Mexico Initiative has applied approximately $12 million for conservation practices on federal, state and private property in the state overall 2, 3.

Work such as this could be undone as a result of the installation a CISF.

Access to adequate water is critically important to farmers and ranchers in an arid state like New Mexico. The presence of a CISF in New Mexico and associated shipments would result in a greater risk of radioactive contamination to the water table. Such an event could put local agriculture out of business. Southeastern New Mexico has scarce water resources and the loss of any wells for stock watering would be irreplaceable for individual producers. Even if an accidental release of radiation were contained by emergency protocols, the perception of contamination would devastate the value of local agricultural products. Again, the draft EIS fails to address this economic factor in the analysis and offers no discussion on the potential impacts to agriculture from contamination of the water table. Finally, agriculture across New Mexico would be impacted by the frequent conveyance of waste to the CISF from across the United States. These regular deliveries would not only strain New Mexicos transportation infrastructure but also increase the risk of a contamination event to rural communities around the state.

Given these serious risks to the farmers and ranchers of New Mexico, NMDA urges the NRC to select the No-Action alternative. As it stands, the proposed action has no plan in place beyond 2

https://www.techlinenews.com/articles/blm-and-partners-restore-southeastern-new-mexico 3

http://www.nmacd.org/restore-new-mexico

John Tappert, Director CISF Project Draft EIS September 22, 2020 Page 3 forty years of interim storage. New Mexicos rural communities should not bear the burden of such a short-sighted approach to a long-term national challenge.

NMDA appreciates the ability to participate in the NRCs public comment process. If you have questions related to these comments, please contact Mr. Max Henkels at (575) 339-5052 or mhenkels@nmda.nmsu.edu.

Sincerely, Jeff M. Witte JMW/mh/ya

From: Padilla, Nadine, IAD <Nadine.Padilla@state.nm.us>

Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 6:31 PM To: Holtec-CISFEIS Resource Cc: Trujillo, Lynn, IAD

Subject:

[External_Sender] Docket ID NRC-2018-0052 Attachments: IAD Letter re Holtec.pdf

Hello, Please find attached the Indian Affairs Department's comments regarding Holtec International's application to store nuclear waste in New Mexico.

Thank you, Nadine Padilla Deputy Secretary Indian Affairs Department www.iad.state.nm.us Email: Nadine.Padilla@state.nm.us Cell: (505) 469-3290 Service

• Respect

• Community Its Not Too Late - Complete the Census Today! You can respond online

([2020Census.gov]2020Census.gov), by phone (844-330-2020), or by mail. #IcountNM

Federal Register Notice: 85FR16150 Comment Number: 4506 Mail Envelope Properties (1600813846872.85696)

Subject:

[External_Sender] Docket ID NRC-2018-0052 Sent Date: 9/22/2020 6:30:46 PM Received Date: 9/22/2020 6:31:21 PM From: Padilla, Nadine, IAD Created By: Nadine.Padilla@state.nm.us Recipients:

Post Office: state.nm.us Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 557 9/22/2020 6:31:21 PM IAD Letter re Holtec.pdf 225133 Options Priority: Standard Return Notification: No Reply Requested: No Sensitivity: Normal Expiration Date:

Recipients Received:

STATE OF NEW MEXICO INDIAN AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT Office of the Secretary Willie Ortiz Building, Basement Michelle Lujan Grisham 2600 Cerrillos Road Lynn Trujillo Governor Santa Fe, NM 87505 Cabinet Secretary Phone (505) 476-1600 Howie Morales Fax (505) 476-1601 Nadine Padilla Lieutenant Governor Deputy Cabinet Secretary www.iad.state.nm.us 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 via email to: Holtec-CISFEIS@nrc.gov RE: Docket ID NRC-2018-0052 Director Tappert:

The Indian Affairs Department (IAD) strongly opposes the recommended action of approving the Holtec International license application for a consolidated interim storage facility for spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste in Lea County, New Mexico and instead supports the No Action alternative. Please find our comments on the March 2020 draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) below.

The Indian Affairs Department is a cabinet-level department that works with the 23 sovereign tribal nations in New Mexico. IAD stands with our Native American tribal communities in opposition to the proposed interim storage facility in southeastern New Mexico.

From the beginning to the end of the nuclear fuel chain, New Mexico communities have borne the brunt of the human health and environmental impacts of nuclear production. From the 1940s through the 1980s New Mexico produced more uranium than any other district in the world and produced more than half of the all the uranium used by the United States. This extensive mining left a legacy of pollution - contaminated air, water, and land that continues to adversely impact human health and the environment today. Communities living in this region suffer many health problems, including high rates of cancer, miscarriages, birth defects, and kidney disease.

Now, Holtec International is seeking to build upon these injustices by imposing the additional burden of long-term storage of nuclear waste in Lea County, New Mexico. While this project is described as an interim solution, it is clear that this action is essentially a license for a permanent waste disposal facility given the absence of a long-term plan. Therefore, the NRC failed to disclose and analyze the impact to human health and the environment related to the indefinite storage of this waste in Lea County, New Mexico.

The All Pueblo Council of Governors (APCG), representing 20 Governors of New Mexicos Pueblo nations, opposes the interim storage facility. IAD reaffirms the concerns stated in Resolution No. APCG 2019-14. In particular, the APCG is concerned with the largest nuclear waste transportation campaign in the nations history and its potential risks to the health of the environment, communities, and irreparable harm to Pueblo cultural resources located near or on transportation routes. The APCG opposes the transportation of spent nuclear fuel across Pueblo lands, now and in the future. Additionally, the Pueblos were not afforded meaningful consultation with the NRC or the U.S. Department of Transportation on this project. The NRC failed to consider Resolution No. APCG 2019-14 and its implications for the Holtec International license application, including concerns related to transportation routes.

Finally, Holtec Internationals proposal to house nuclear waste in southeastern New Mexico threatens drinking water sources. The NRC failed to consider the cultural impacts for generations of New Mexicans due to suspected or actual contamination of drinking water resources.

For the reasons set forth above, IAD strongly urges the NRC to pursue the No Action alternative.

Sincerely, LLynn y n Trujillo yn lo o

Cabinet C

Ca neet Secretary abine b in bi SSeecreta

ÿ

ÿ

ÿ

ÿ

ÿ

ÿ

ÿ 01234514 0430 677188

ÿ

ÿ 5)*+,-+.ÿ/0ÿ1212ÿ

ÿ

ÿ

ÿ

ÿ 13345+ÿ)3ÿ66,47489.:94)7ÿ

4<ÿ=9)>ÿ8?@5ABA6C2;ÿ DE=Eÿ5F5<+

.ÿ4+GF<:9).HÿI),,4884)7ÿJ54IKÿ

?:8L47G9)70ÿMEIEÿÿ12NNNA222Oÿ 6885PÿQ.)G.:,ÿ;:7:G+,+790ÿ677)F75+,+7980ÿ:76ÿ364947Gÿ=9:33ÿ

ÿ 4+Pÿ R79+.4,ÿ=9).:G+ÿQ:.97+.8ÿJR=QKÿI)78)<46:9+6ÿR79+.4,ÿ=9).:G+ÿ@:54<49HÿQ.)S+590ÿ

ÿ M)5T+9ÿRMÿ54IA12OCA21/Oÿ

ÿ M+:.ÿ13345+ÿ)3ÿ66,47489.:94)7ÿ=9:33Pÿ

ÿ 68ÿ0)*+.7).ÿ)3ÿ8+U:80ÿRÿ89.)7G<Hÿ)>>)8+ÿR=QV8ÿ:>><45:94)7ÿ3).ÿ:ÿ<45+78+ÿ9)ÿ5)789.F59ÿ:76ÿ)>+.:9+ÿ:ÿ 5)78)<46:9+6ÿ479+.4,ÿ89).:G+ÿ3:54<49Hÿ47ÿ676.+W8ÿI)F79H0ÿ8+U:8EÿÿX:*47Gÿ5)78F<9+6ÿW49Lÿ7F,+.)F8ÿ89:9+ÿ

G+754+80ÿ475<F647Gÿ9L+ÿ8+U:8ÿM+>:.9,+79ÿ)3ÿQF-<45ÿ=:3+9H0ÿ9L+ÿ8+U:8ÿI),,4884)7ÿ)7ÿ37*4.)7,+79:<ÿ YF:<49H0ÿ:76ÿ9L+ÿ8+U:8ÿM+>:.9,+79ÿ)3ÿ8.:78>).9:94)70ÿRÿF.G+ÿ9L+ÿ54Iÿ9)ÿ6+7HÿR=QV8ÿ<45+78+ÿ:>><45:94)7Eÿ

ÿ R3ÿR=QV8ÿ<45+78+ÿ:>><45:94)7ÿW+.+ÿ:>>.)*+60ÿ498ÿ>.)>)8+6ÿ3:54<49HÿW)F<6ÿ89).+ÿ8>+79ÿ7F5<+:.ÿ3F+<ÿ:76ÿ 0.+:9+.A8L:7AI<:88AIÿW:89+0ÿ-)9Lÿ)3ÿWL45Lÿ>.+8+79ÿ:ÿG.+:9+.ÿ.:64)<)G45:<ÿ.48Tÿ9L:7ÿ8+U:8ÿ48ÿ>.+>:.+6ÿ9)ÿ

<<)WEÿÿ8L48ÿ6+:6<Hÿ.:64):594*+ÿW:89+ÿZÿF>ÿ9)ÿ[20222ÿ,+9.45ÿ9)78ÿ)3ÿF.:74F,ÿZÿW)F<6ÿ849ÿ.4GL9ÿ)7ÿ9L+ÿ 8F.3:5+ÿ)3ÿ9L+ÿ3:54<49Hÿ47ÿ6.Hÿ5:8Tÿ89).:G+ÿ8H89+,8Eÿÿ=>+79ÿ7F5<+:.ÿ3F+<ÿ48ÿ8)ÿ6:7G+.)F8ÿ9L:9ÿ49ÿ-+<)7G8ÿ47ÿ:ÿ 6++>ÿG+)<)G45ÿ.+>)849).H0ÿ7)9ÿ)7ÿ:ÿ5)75.+9+ÿ>:6ÿ:-)*+ÿG.)F76ÿ47ÿ676.+W8ÿI)F79HEÿÿ\))^ÿ]a0ÿ[1ÿDE=EIEÿ bÿO2O2OJOcKdÿe]fghgÿfÿijk0ÿ[NBÿ@E/6ÿBc0ÿcOÿJMEIEÿI4.Eÿ122CKEÿÿ8L48ÿ<)5:94)7ÿ5)F<6ÿ7)9ÿ-+ÿW).8+ÿ3).ÿ 89).47GÿF<9.:AL:l:.6)F8ÿ.:64):594*+ÿW:89+Eÿ

ÿ 676.+W8ÿI)F79Hÿ<4+8ÿW49L47ÿ9L+ÿQ+.,4:7ÿ7:847ÿ4+G4)70ÿWL45LÿL:8ÿ8F.>:88+6ÿ=:F64ÿ6.:-4:V8ÿ0L:W:.ÿ

@4+<6ÿ:8ÿ9L+ÿ<:.G+89ÿ>.)6F547Gÿ)4<34+<6ÿ47ÿ9L+ÿW).<6Eÿÿ8L+.+ÿ:.+ÿ:>>.)U4,:9+<Hÿ1N20222ÿ:594*+ÿ)4<A:76AG:8ÿ W+<<8ÿ47ÿ8+U:8V8ÿ>).94)7ÿ)3ÿ9L+ÿQ+.,4:7ÿ7:847EÿÿR7ÿ12Om0ÿ)4<ÿ>.)6F594)7ÿ47ÿ9L+ÿQ+.,4:7ÿ7:847ÿ+U5++6+6ÿ OENÿ-4<<4)7ÿ-:..+<80ÿ:76ÿ9L+ÿ)4<A:76AG:8ÿ476F89.Hÿ64.+59<Hÿ+,><)H+6ÿcB0C2/ÿ4764*46F:<8ÿ47ÿ9L+ÿ.+G4)7Eÿÿ6<8)ÿ 47ÿ12Om0ÿ9L+ÿQ+.,4:7ÿ7:847ÿW:8ÿ.+8>)784-<+ÿ3).ÿnmÿ-4<<4)7ÿ47ÿ8+*+.:75+ÿ9:U+8ÿ:76ÿ.)H:<94+8ÿ9)ÿ9L+ÿ=9:9+ÿ)3ÿ 8+U:8EÿÿR7ÿ12Oc0ÿ9L+ÿQ+.,4:7ÿ7:847ÿ>.)6F5+6ÿ,).+ÿ9L:7ÿ/2ÿ>+.5+79ÿ)3ÿ9)9:<ÿDE=Eÿ5.F6+ÿ)4<ÿ:76ÿ5)79:47+6ÿ

,).+ÿ9L:7ÿ[2ÿ>+.5+79ÿ)3ÿ>.)*+6ÿ)4<ÿ.+8+.*+8EÿÿR7ÿ8L).90ÿ9L+ÿQ+.,4:7ÿ7:847ÿ48ÿ:ÿ84G74345:79ÿ+5)7),45ÿ:76ÿ 7:9F.:<ÿ.+8)F.5+ÿ3).ÿ9L+ÿ+794.+ÿ5)F79.HEÿ

ÿ 8L+ÿ>.)>)8+6ÿR=Qÿ3:54<49Hÿ4,>+.4<8ÿ6,+.45:V8ÿ+7+.GHÿ8+5F.49Hÿ-+5:F8+ÿ49ÿW)F<6ÿ-+ÿ:ÿ>.4,+ÿ9:.G+9ÿ3).ÿ

99:5T8ÿ-Hÿ9+..).48980ÿ8:-)9+F.80ÿ:76ÿ)9L+.ÿ+7+,4+8Eÿÿ=>+79ÿ7F5<+:.ÿ3F+<ÿ48ÿ5F..+79<Hÿ85:99+.+6ÿ:5.)88ÿ9L+ÿ 5)F79.Hÿ:9ÿ*:.4)F8ÿ.+:59).ÿ849+8ÿ:76ÿ89).:G+ÿ4789:<<:94)78EÿÿQ4<47Gÿ49ÿF>ÿ)7ÿ9L+ÿ8F.3:5+ÿ)3ÿ9L+ÿQ+.,4:7ÿ 9      !" #$% &&%' &"

011234ÿ61ÿ78922 26ÿÿ

6494ÿÿÿ

4ÿÿ

ÿ

ÿ

ÿ

2ÿÿÿ44ÿ6ÿ86ÿ68ÿ6ÿÿ4 62ÿ2!ÿÿ69ÿ6ÿÿ!2"348ÿ231ÿ6ÿ34ÿÿ9"6ÿ

826324ÿ444ÿ!ÿ368ÿ4ÿ!848ÿ61ÿ924ÿ6ÿ!4ÿ426#ÿ!2!ÿ28$ÿÿ3!ÿÿ3ÿ68ÿ

4ÿ2%4&ÿ3 6'!23ÿ434ÿ6ÿ6'ÿ61ÿ!4ÿ23ÿ6 ÿ61ÿ!9ÿ214ÿ2ÿ68ÿ82'ÿ!4ÿ36 &#ÿ 44&ÿ&ÿ&ÿ!2ÿ86 ÿ!4ÿ6 8#ÿ4 ÿ'6832ÿ621248$ÿÿ(!4ÿ492ÿ2ÿ2ÿ48&ÿÿ

4ÿ16ÿ79423#ÿ44924ÿ8ÿ 2ÿ#ÿ234 4ÿ2326ÿ68ÿ'2ÿÿ44ÿ24ÿ

 4&4$ÿ

ÿ

) 84ÿ!4ÿ26ÿ* 2694 ÿ623&ÿ73ÿ61ÿ+,-,ÿ!4ÿÿ!ÿÿ6226ÿ6ÿ36 284ÿ!4ÿ 42694 ÿ41143 ÿ61ÿÿ4 62ÿ3ÿ6ÿ!4ÿ'6'648ÿÿ1322&$ÿÿ.//ÿ1234/56ÿ725ÿ8/9:/ÿ;<ÿ=>?ÿ

@@,ÿA$8ÿ++-ÿ+BCDÿE,!ÿ2$ÿ-FGÿHI3ÿ6//ÿ=<J<ÿK/LM3ÿ27ÿNO;3P<ÿ8523<ÿ;<ÿ=>?ÿD-+ÿA$8ÿ+ÿ+-C

@ÿE8ÿ2$ÿ,FÿE342ÿ3232ÿ'2ÿ6ÿ24FGÿ=/QÿR25Sÿ;<ÿ=>?ÿDB,ÿA$8ÿDD+ÿDD@ÿ$+ÿE8ÿ2$ÿ

,FÿE'4ÿ329FÿE6282ÿ3232ÿ'2ÿ434ÿT!4ÿÿ828ÿ112324 &ÿ4ÿ26ÿ336 ÿ3 ÿ61ÿ 4 629UF$ÿÿ4!'ÿ4362V2ÿÿ93!ÿ!4ÿÿ884 48ÿ!4ÿ2ÿ61ÿ4 629ÿ2ÿ4326ÿ@$+,ÿ61ÿ2ÿ W4423ÿ* 2694 ÿ9'3ÿ494 ÿ16ÿ6 248ÿ64ÿ61ÿ'4 ÿ34ÿA4$ÿÿ.//ÿ+ÿ$A$$ÿ XÿD+$ÿE36 Y414432ÿ)*WY+DZF$ÿÿ(!4ÿW4423ÿ* 2694 ÿ9'3ÿ494 ÿ8449248ÿ Eÿ'4ÿ@Y,ZFÿ!ÿ4 629#ÿT42694 ÿ2ÿ2ÿ[7\\Uÿ82ÿ!4ÿ'4268ÿ4&68ÿÿ1322&#ÿ 234 4ÿ49$ÿÿ]I3ÿ6//ÿ@ÿ)$$$ÿXÿ+4ÿE41432ÿ64 #ÿ"894 ÿ!ÿ!4ÿ2ÿ61ÿÿ4 62ÿ

3ÿ6ÿÿ34ÿ1322&ÿ  ÿ!4ÿ#ÿ341ÿ4 26F$ÿ

ÿ

6ÿ2ÿ4326 ÿ+$@$@ÿ8ÿD$+$ÿ61ÿ!4ÿ^1ÿ* 2694 ÿ9'3ÿ494 ÿ16ÿ!4ÿ234 4ÿ2326ÿ 2ÿ7 84 ÿ6 &ÿ!4ÿÿ4 &ÿ44ÿ6ÿ&ÿ2ÿ4423ÿ4 629ÿ8449226ÿ6ÿ$ÿÿ(!4ÿ

'6'648ÿÿ1322&ÿ!644ÿ68ÿ4ÿÿ2%4&ÿ'66324ÿ4_ÿÿ(!4ÿ'622&ÿ61ÿÿ4 62ÿ

3ÿ2ÿ!2!4ÿ!ÿ16ÿÿ4423ÿ436ÿ24ÿ434ÿ!4ÿ36 4%434ÿ4ÿ!2!4ÿ!4ÿÿ4 62ÿ3ÿ 82'ÿ!4ÿ36 &#ÿ44&ÿ&ÿ2!ÿÿ9"6ÿ826324ÿ444$ÿÿ6ÿ!4ÿW4423ÿ* 2694 ÿ

9'3ÿ494 ÿ864ÿ6ÿ84%4&ÿ 4 ÿ4 629ÿ2ÿÿ6ÿÿ2ÿ'23ÿ!24ÿ!4ÿ^ 1ÿ

• 2694 ÿ9'3ÿ494 ÿ864ÿ6ÿ'4ÿ6ÿ!ÿ2 4ÿÿ$ÿÿ8448ÿ!4ÿ68ÿT4 629Uÿ

4 ÿ" ÿ634ÿ2ÿÿ944ÿ3226ÿ2ÿ!4ÿ^ 1ÿ* 2694 ÿ9'3ÿ494 ÿEÿ'4ÿY+F$ÿ

ÿ 7 !6!ÿ!4ÿ^ 1ÿ* 2694 ÿ9'3ÿ494 ÿ4'448&ÿ414 ÿ6ÿ#ÿ36 326ÿ8ÿ 6'426ÿ61ÿÿT36 62848ÿO3/5aÿ64ÿ1322&Uÿ2ÿ68ÿ4ÿb4ÿ6ÿ4244ÿ!4ÿ!2!2!48ÿ68$ÿÿ

#ÿ2326ÿ44ÿÿ@Y&4ÿ234 4ÿ2!ÿ!4ÿ'6 222&ÿ61ÿÿY&4ÿ44$ÿÿ(!4ÿ^ 1ÿ

• 2694 ÿ9'3ÿ494 ÿ29'&ÿ 94ÿEÿ'4ÿc2cÿ+YÿYÿBY+ÿ,Y+-Fÿ!ÿÿ'494 ÿ

46623ÿ4'626&ÿ2ÿ4ÿ8446'48ÿ8ÿ234 48ÿ4164ÿ!64ÿ-ÿ&4 ÿ4ÿ'ÿ2!6ÿ884 2ÿ&ÿ 36 243&ÿ16ÿ!4ÿ'4 ÿ34ÿ14ÿ21ÿ3!ÿÿ4'626&ÿ2ÿ6ÿ48&ÿ!4ÿ#ÿ234 4ÿ4c'24$ÿÿ

(!64ÿ6&ÿ 9'26 ÿ4ÿ 68_ÿÿ826324ÿ 4ÿ!ÿT!4ÿ3'32&ÿ6ÿ6 ÿ!9ÿ3222V26ÿ

ÿ4ÿ6ÿ2Uÿ=I:P/95ÿNO/5deÿfO63<gÿfO:<ÿ;<ÿN8hÿZÿA$8ÿ+D+ÿ+DZÿE^$$ÿ2$ÿ@FÿE'4ÿ329Fÿ

8ÿ&ÿ'4 ÿ34ÿ14ÿ!ÿ3694ÿ6ÿ!4ÿ'6'648ÿÿ1322&ÿ2ÿ4ÿ!44ÿ6ÿ&$ÿ

ÿ

64 ÿ4ÿ62ÿ6ÿÿ 2ÿ626ÿ6ÿ!4ÿ'4 ÿ34ÿ14ÿ'649ÿ&ÿ' 2ÿ!4ÿ34ÿ i 4ÿ623&ÿ73ÿ61ÿ+,Bÿ!23!ÿ4ÿ88ÿ16ÿÿ'494 ÿ46623ÿ4'626&ÿ8ÿ!4ÿi7ÿ 794894 ÿ73ÿ61ÿ+,BZÿ!23!ÿ84248ÿj33ÿ[6 2ÿÿ!4ÿ6 &ÿ24ÿ16ÿ2$ÿÿ(68&ÿBÿ&4 ÿ

4ÿ!44ÿ2ÿ2ÿ6ÿ'494 ÿ46623ÿ4'626&ÿ2!ÿj33ÿ[6 2ÿ4114324&ÿ!2ÿ44ÿ

8648$ÿÿ.//gÿ/<d<ÿ=/QÿR25Sÿ;<ÿ=>?ÿB@ÿA$8ÿ++ÿ++@C+DÿE^$$ÿ2$ÿ+-FGÿfOÿ5/ÿhS/Oÿ?2IO3eÿ

-@DÿA$8ÿ@Bÿ@CÿE^$$ÿ2$ÿ++F$ÿÿ0 34ÿ2ÿ!4ÿTkl!4ÿklÿ4 &ÿ!ÿ6ÿ6Y49ÿ

'ÿ6!4ÿ!ÿ!6'2ÿ16ÿÿ46623ÿ4'626&$ÿÿ1ÿ!4ÿ64 94 ÿ36 24ÿ6ÿ12ÿ2ÿ2ÿ%4 ÿ6ÿ 4 2!ÿ64ÿ!4ÿk'4 ÿ34ÿ14lÿ2ÿ4492&ÿ4ÿ648ÿ6ÿ24ÿÿ34ÿ' ÿ6ÿÿ'494 ÿ

011234ÿ61ÿ78922 26ÿÿ

6494ÿÿÿ

4ÿÿ

ÿ

ÿ

ÿ

2ÿÿ4ÿÿ3ÿ8ÿ9 ÿ 4 ÿ4ÿ64 2!ÿ42694 !ÿ41143 ÿ61ÿ3ÿÿ12!4"ÿÿ#$%ÿ'()*ÿ

+,ÿ#-.ÿ/01ÿ28ÿ341ÿ345ÿ67ÿ2ÿ18ÿ

ÿ

4ÿ94423ÿ: 2694 !ÿ;9 3ÿ<494 ÿ363484ÿ6ÿ4ÿ3=5>8ÿÿ?88226!ÿ432@ÿ 4A2494 ÿ9@ÿ4ÿ434 @ÿ2ÿ4ÿ14ÿ21ÿ 4 ÿ14!ÿ492 ÿ2ÿ64ÿ16ÿÿ  2!ÿ4268ÿ61ÿ 294ÿÿB 84ÿ64ÿ3239 34ÿ2ÿ2ÿ46!4ÿ6ÿ 94ÿÿ21ÿ434 @ÿ4ÿÿC2!!ÿ24ÿ684 ÿ 6ÿ434ÿ2ÿ4!6@ÿ4A2494 ÿ16ÿ;<2<;ÿ8ÿ7<ÿ432@ÿÿ 6 24ÿ6ÿ4 4ÿ84A4ÿ 64326ÿ61ÿ!23ÿ4!ÿ8ÿ14@ÿ8ÿ4ÿ36996ÿ8414 4ÿ8ÿ432@"ÿÿ2ÿ 63ÿ6ÿ14ÿ 4 62ÿ4 ÿDÿ4 4 2!!@ÿÿ 6924ÿ61ÿEFGGÿH$GGÿI(JÿGKH$)ÿDÿ2ÿ6ÿ668ÿ46ÿ8ÿ864ÿ6ÿ 643ÿ

4Lÿ8ÿ2ÿ322M4 ÿÿÿ

ÿ 22!!@ÿ14ÿ 6 26ÿ61ÿ 4 ÿ3!4ÿ14!ÿC6!8ÿ4A24ÿ 432!2M48ÿ49443@ÿ4 6 4ÿ 4A294 ÿ8ÿ248ÿ4 6 4!ÿÿC4!!ÿÿ22123 ÿ21 34ÿ24 94 ÿÿ4Lÿ3 4 !@ÿÿ 16ÿ36 24ÿ6N4Lÿ7!!ÿO28!8ÿ8ÿ4348ÿ8ÿ64ÿ32@ÿ6<ÿ7 6268ÿÿ4ÿ 48ÿ 46!26 ÿ 6222ÿ4ÿ 6 26ÿ61ÿ 4 ÿ3!4ÿ14!ÿ8ÿ2=!44!ÿC 4ÿÿ733682ÿ6ÿ4ÿ 71ÿ: 2694 !ÿ;9 3ÿ<494 ÿ6ÿ4ÿ=08ÿ4ÿ36ÿ3 4 !@ÿ2 48ÿ6ÿ2!ÿ!24ÿ6ÿ

4ÿ492ÿN2ÿ36 2 ÿ 292!@ÿ61ÿ?62!124!8ÿ369968224ÿ3ÿÿ82!!2ÿ98ÿ@863!623ÿ328ÿ 13P2ÿ8ÿ24ÿ8ÿ46!49ÿ 683 ÿ23!82ÿ384ÿ62!ÿÿC4!!ÿÿ26ÿ8ÿ44!ÿ3"ÿÿ44ÿ

4ÿ!6ÿ22123 ÿ23!!ÿ369968224ÿÿ;ÿ4ÿ44 ÿ61ÿÿ2!ÿ33284 ÿ6ÿ842!94 ÿ44ÿ4 ÿÿ

826!623!ÿ4!44ÿ4ÿ4634ÿ8ÿ!6223ÿ4A248ÿ6ÿ884 ÿ3ÿÿ33284 ÿC6!8ÿ444!@ÿ 82 ÿ4ÿ 6 26ÿ61ÿ62!124!8ÿ8ÿ23!!ÿ369968224ÿ6ÿ4ÿ84294 ÿ61ÿ4ÿ4 24ÿ36 @ÿ

ÿ

ÿ!2ÿ61ÿ4ÿ4ÿ2Pÿ 63248ÿC2ÿ4ÿ 6648ÿ;<ÿ132!2@ÿ4ÿ434ÿ61ÿÿ494 ÿ46!623ÿ 4626@ÿ8ÿ4ÿ29 6 34ÿ61ÿ4ÿ492ÿN2ÿ6ÿ4ÿ36 @Qÿ44@ÿ432@ÿ8ÿ43669@ÿ;ÿ 4 431!!@ÿ8ÿ49 23!!@ÿ4A4 ÿÿ4ÿÿ84@ÿ;<Qÿ!234 4ÿ !2326ÿ

ÿ

<2344!@ÿ

ÿ

ÿ

ÿ

ÿ 94ÿ76 ÿ 964 6ÿ

ÿ 97RSPÿ

ÿ 33Rÿ 4ÿT66!4ÿ7ÿN62!!44ÿ<434@ÿB<ÿ7494 ÿ61ÿ: 4@ÿ

ÿ 4ÿT66!4ÿ8ÿ2ÿU6!1ÿ732ÿ<434@ÿB<ÿ7494 ÿ61ÿT694!8ÿ<432@ÿ

ÿ 6!64!ÿ<44ÿÿO3Cÿ72436ÿ4Lÿ7494 ÿ61ÿ!23ÿ<14@ÿ

ÿ O ÿ6@ÿNP4ÿ:L4324ÿ72436ÿ4Lÿ6992 26ÿ6ÿ: 2694 !ÿV!2@ÿ

ÿ O ÿ7 !4@ÿ264ÿ72436ÿ826324ÿO42!ÿ72226ÿ:Vÿ O ÿW94ÿOÿN ÿ:L4324ÿ72436ÿ4Lÿ7494 ÿ61ÿ 6 26ÿ O ÿU42ÿUÿ:L4324ÿ72436ÿ4Lÿ2!68ÿ699226ÿ