NRC ASLB announces change of venue for Holtec/ELEA CISF licensing proceedings in Albuquerque, NM
ORDER
(Regarding Status of Oral Argument)
Because of the partial shutdown of the federal government, it appears the United States
District Court in Albuquerque, New Mexico may be unable to accommodate the oral argument in
this proceeding that has been scheduled for January 23-24, 2019.
The Board expects to secure an alternative location in Albuquerque. A further order,
confirming the location and providing additional information concerning the argument, will be
issued within the next 1-2 days.
It is so ORDERED.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
/RA/
________________________
Paul S. Ryerson, Chairman
ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
admin
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 reprsenting 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 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.