Request for redacted information re: "cultural properties" in Holtec/ELEA CISF Environmental Report

Toledo, OH attorney Terry Lodge, legal counsel for Don't Waste Michigan in the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) Holtec/Eddy-Lea [Counties] Energy Alliance license application proceeding to construct and operate a centralized interim storage facility for irradiated nuclear fuel in southeastern New Mexico, has submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the agency. It regards the redaction of a long section of the Holtec Environmental Report, on "Cultural Properties," for "security-related" reasons.

No explanation was given as to why or how "cultural properties" could have "security-related" issues that would justify such secrecy.

"Cultural properties" can refer to National Register of Historic Places under the National Historic Preservation Act. However, it can also refer to Native American archaeological sites, sacred sites, and even burial sites.

Such "cultural properties" could well be damaged or entirely destroyed (or in the case of Native American sacred or burial sites, desecrated) by the construction and operation of the Holtec/ELEA CISF.

Update on July 11, 2018 by admin

In a letter to attorney Terry Lodge of Toledo, OH, NRC acknowledged receipt of his FOIA request, but rejected his request that the agency response be expedited.

NRC rejects 52-group environmental coalition's call for Holtec CISF comment deadline extension and more public meetings

By letter dated June 26, 2018, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff rejected the call from an environmental coalition of 52 groups for 18 more environmental scoping public comment meetings, and an extension of the current July 30, 2018 deadline for public comment out to October 30, 2018, regarding the Holtec International/Eddy-Lea [Counties] Energy Alliance scheme to construct and operate a centralized interim storage facility for up to 173,600 metric tons of irradiated nuclear fuel in southeastern New Mexico.

The NRC apparently snail mailed the letter out to each of the 52 groups, as well as to Toledo, Ohio attorney Terry Lodge who serves as legal counsel for the coalition effort. The letter was not emailed. Thus, even though it was dated June 26, it took the coalition several days to even learn of the letter's existence.

And the deadline clock keeps ticking toward July 30th, NRC's deadline for public comments on environmental scoping for this most dangerous scheme.

This means we must redouble efforts to urge members of congress to demand additional public meetings, and an extension of the comment deadline. Such action by the two U.S. Senators from New Mexico (Tom Udall and Martin Heinrich, both Democrats) earlier this year successfully secured two additional meetings in northern New Mexico, which otherwise would not have happened.

As the coalition's request made clear more than two months ago now, given the transport risks alone of the proposed CISF, public meetings should be held nationwide. Thus far, meetings have only been held in New Mexico, and a single meeting at the NRC's HQ in Rockville, MD (the agency, per usual, barely circulated notice of the meeting in the local area, so a single member of the public was all that turned out in person; however, 70 concerned citizens and environmental group representatives from across the country turned out by phone, despite the short notice).

Here is a draft letter (in both PDF and .docx formats) that you could give to your own U.S. Representative, and to both of your own U.S. Senators, for their use in requesting a public meeting in your congressional district or state, and for requesting an extension to the current July 30, 2018 deadline. Please urge your members of congress to take action ASAP.

You can phone your members' of congress offices via the U.S. Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121.

Or you can look up the specific contact info. for both your U.S. Senators here, and your U.S. Representative here.

Fatal flaws in Holtec’s plan

An op-ed by John Buchser, published in the Santa Fe New Mexican.

John Buchser of Santa Fe is the immediate past chairman of the Rio Grande Chapter of the Sierra Club. He is interested in seeking solutions to sustainable use of our water in New Mexico and West Texas.

NRC makes public two more key documents re: Holtec/ELEA CISF, in response to Beyond Nuclear FOIA request

On June 28, 2018, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) responded to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request submitted by Beyond Nuclear on May 1, 2018. The FOIA request was submitted by Washington, D.C. attorney Diane Curran, who serves as legal counsel for Beyond Nuclear in the proceeding re: the Holtec/Eddy-Lea Counties Energy Alliance irradiated nuclear fuel centralized interim storage facility targeted at southeastern New Mexico.

NRC publicly released two documents in response to the FOIA request:

(1) Holtec 2016a. Holtec International (Holtec). Data Call for the CISF Environmental Report. September 2016.

 (2) Holtec 2017a. Holtec International (Holtec). Cost-Benefit Analysis Data Call.       February 2017.

The letter from NRC, and both publicly released documents, can be viewed online at the NRC website, here.

Now that NRC has responded to this FOIA request, it is very likely that NRC will very soon announce the commencement of its licensing proceeding for Holtec/ELEA's CISF. Once the announcement is made, in a Federal Register Notice, opponents to the CISF will have a remarkably short 60 days to file their legal interventions. This is a hyper-strict legal deadline. If we miss it, we can never intervene legally again in the future. However, a broad coalition of environmental groups is gearing up to fight the Holtec/ELEA CISF, by legally intervening in the NRC's proceeding.

Texas Democratic Party stands against environmental injustice, and highly radioactive waste transport, storage, and disposal

Thanks to Karen Hadden of the SEED Coalition in Austin, TX for calling our attention to this good news.

In addition to municipal resolutions in both TX and NM, now a state political party has stated its opposition to highly radioactive waste centralized interim storage facilities targeted at the TX/NM borderlands.

The State of Texas Democratic Party, in the "Environmental Protection, Regulation, and Enforcement" section of its 2018-2020 party platform, has stated it support for:

• the enactment of laws and regulations to protect low-income communities and communities of color from environmental racism and environmental injustice;
• halting the plan to import high-level radioactive waste for consolidated storage or disposal in Texas due to risks of water contamination, security concerns and transportation accidents, and we oppose transport of high-level radioactive waste on our highways or railways...

The Texas Democrats Platform Committee passed this party platform on June 23, 2018.

There are two proposed schemes for the centralized, or consolidated, "interim storage" (CIS) of highly radioactive irradiated nuclear fuel that would significantly impact Texas. The first targets Texas directly: Waste Control Specialists, LLC's (WCS) proposal to "temporarily store" (for decades, centuries, or indefinitely into the future) 40,000 metric tons of irradiated nuclear fuel and highly radioactive waste in Andrews County, Texas, right on the state line with New Mexico.

But another CIS facility (CISF) proposal, by Holtec International and the Eddy-Lea [Counties] Energy Alliance (ELEA), targets a site in southeastern New Mexico located just 39 miles from WCS in TX.  The Holtec/ELEA CISF proposal is for up to 173,600 metric tons of irradiated nuclear fuel and highly radioactive waste.

Either one of these de facto permanent, surface storage, parking lot dumps opening would mean unprecedented large-scale shipment, by truck, train, and/or barge, on Texas interstate highways, railways, and perhaps even into Texas ports, of highly radioactive wastes. These shipments could number in the many thousands, over the course of not years, but decades.

If the wastes ever left the TX/NM borderlands (they might not ever leave, once delivered), they could well pass right back through the TX communities they have traveled through in the first place -- depending on where the geologic repository opens for permanent disposal. And in the case of contaminated or leaking containers, the CISF applicants have stated a "return to sender" policy -- meaning shipments could travel back through TX communities en route to the nuclear power plants from which they originated in the first place.

TX has also been targeted for permanent disposal of highly radioactive wastes in the past. In the mid-1980s, the federal Department of Energy had placed Deaf Smith County, TX (known as an agricultural breadbasket) on its short list for Western repository candidates. The George W. Bush administration in late 2008 repeated the possibility that TX could be so targeted again in the future.

Both the WCS, TX and the Holtec/ELEA, NM CISFs raise serious environmental justice concerns. The surrounding area is home to large Hispanic communities. The area is already heavily polluted by intense fossil fuel (natural gas fracking, oil extraction) and nuclear (uranium enrichment, both military and commercial "low-level" radioactive waste dumping, and plans for depleted uranium (DU) processing and disposal) industries.

If you are active in a state political party, please consider urging it to pass a similar platform plank to the one just passed by the Texas Democratic Party. After all, in addition to being directly targeted for CISFs (TX, NM), or a permanent burial dump (Yucca Mountain in NV), most states in the Lower 48 would be very hard hit by high-risk shipments to the dumps, if one ever opens. See, for example, the 44 states through which highly radioactive waste trucks and trains would pass en route to these Western dump-sites. And see the additional states at risk from potential barge shipments en route to these same Western dumps. (While the preceding maps show routes bound for the Yucca Mountain, NV targeted dump-site, the routes to the TX/NM borderlands would be similar, or the same, during the initial legs of the journeys nationwide, the further from the American Southwest. Only at a certain point would routes then diverge from each other, and take other routes to the borderlands of NM/TX, instead of NV.)