Holtec/ELEA CISF oral argument pre-hearings to be held in Albuquerque, Jan. 23-24
The three-administrative law judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel (ASLBP) appointed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in the Holtec International/Eddy-Lea Energy Alliance irradiated nuclear fuel centralized interim storage facility (CISF) license application proceeding has ordered that oral argument pre-hearings will be held in Albuquerque, New Mexico, beginning on Wed., Jan. 23, and continuing on Thurs., Jan. 24 if needed. The pre-hearings are open to the public, so please spread the word to anyone you know in northern New Mexico -- attendance by concerned citizens in support of our opposition to this CISF would be very valuable!
The pre-hearings will address "standing and contention admissibility." A broad coalition has filed legal interventions: Beyond Nuclear (represented by legal counsel Diane Curran and Mindy Goldstein); Sierra Club (represented by legal counsel Wally Taylor); Aliance for Environmental Strategies (represented by legal counsel Nancy Simmons); and a seven-group environmental coalition, spanning coast to coast (represented by legal counsel Terry Lodge).
admin
See the ASLB order (link immediately below), announcing the start time of 9am MST on Wed., Jan. 23, as well as the location. The oral argument pre-hearings will continue on Thurs., Jan. 24 (again, starting at 9am MST), as needed.
The NRC ASLB has issued its order. The venue for the Holtec/ELEA CISF licensing oral argument pre-hearings has been changed. Here is the new venue:
State Bar of New Mexico, 5121 Masthead Street NE, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
The order in which the various legal teams representing opponents to the CISF will be heard has also been changed.
The ASLB has also listed its areas of particular questioning to be focused upon during the course of the Jan. 23-24 hearings.
Here is that particular excerpt from the Jan. 10, 2019 ASLB Order:
1. Does Holtec agree that, absent new legislation, the Department of Energy could not lawfully assume ownership of the nuclear waste in the proposed interim storage facility?
2. If Holtec does not agree, have Beyond Nuclear and the Sierra Club raised an admissible legal issue contention concerning this issue?
3. Treating Fasken’s motion to dismiss as a hearing petition, has Fasken effectively adopted Beyond Nuclear’s sole contention?
4. If so, and Fasken having proffered no other contention of its own, must its hearing petition be dismissed?
5. To what extent must subsurface conditions be characterized in the Environmental Report if the proposed storage facility would not affect them?
6. To what extent must subsurface characteristics be characterized by the safety analysis if these subsurface characteristics would not affect the safety of the storage facility?
7. Because Holtec asserts high burnup fuel will always be enclosed within the HISTORE canister, and the HI-STORE system has been certified by the NRC for storage and transportation of high burnup fuel, to what extent must high burnup fuel be specifically addressed in the application?
8. Standing premised on proximity to potential transportation routes.
9. Standing premised on proximity to the proposed facility.
10. Adequacy of the application with respect to design alternatives analysis and the need for disclosure of proprietary design information in such an analysis.
11. Adequacy of the application with respect to geologic risks and geologic
characterization of the proposed site.
12. Why would a hearing opportunity associated with license amendments be less
satisfactory to NAC than a hearing in the present proceeding?
13. Safe storage and transportation implications of the UMAX storage system’s
operating beyond its current design and service life, including the effects of high burnup fuel.
14. Risks associated with onsite storage compared with offsite storage, including
transportation risks and the potential effects of high burnup fuel.
[Please note that this Jan. 10, 2019 ASLB Order supercedes and replaces the one issued on Dec. 14, 2018.]