Dear Holtec and Interim Storage Partners:
Both of you are actively pursuing permission from the US Nuclear Regulatory to build consolidated interim storage facilities in an area of southwest Texas and southeast New Mexico that seemed well suited for the purpose at the time that you began the process.
Times have changed since then. One of the primary changes is that a technological revolution has converted the Permian Basin from a region with steadily depleting oil and gas production into one of the world’s most productive sources of oil and gas.
A hard, questioning look at the current situation would reveal that it is time to abandon the current applications in favor of finding better locations.
Stubbornly continuing your current projects will impose significant damage to the future of nuclear energy in the United States. Since both of you have major business interests in this industry, you will be damaging existing and future profit centers within your enterprises for the sake of individual projects with uncertain profit potential.
Neither proposed poses an actual physical risk, but they are both creating new political and public perception risks for an industry that needs to be repairing its image and building constructive alliances.
The material that some call spent nuclear fuel, some call “nuclear waste” and some prefer to call future nuclear fuel is safely and affordably stored already. Cancellation of your current projects will not impose any significant additional delay in addressing the “nuclear waste problem.”
Sincerely, Rod Adams
Why would I write such a letter?
On November 3, Texas Governor Greg Abbot sent a letter to the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission that urged the agency to deny a license to Interim Storage Partners for the facility that would be located in his state.
On July 28, New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham sent a much shorter letter to President Trump expressing her opposition to the Holtec project that would be sited in her state.
Both letters claim that consolidated interim storage facilities for used nuclear fuel would pose unacceptable risks to the Permian Basin, which has recently become the most productive oil and gas extraction region in the United States. That region is near the top of the worldwide list of oil and gas production.
Both governors (one Republican and one Democrat) raise the specter of terrorist attacks and describe the financial harm that would be imposed if radioactive materials were to be forcefully distributed across areas that annually provide their states with billions of dollars in tax revenues from resource extraction.
In my opinion, it is counterproductive to stubbornly pursue speculative projects in the face of such strong opposition.
Opposition has deep pockets
Protect the Basin isn’t a typical antinuclear organization. It is an initiative of the Permian Basin Coalition of Land & Royalty Owners and Operators. Their financial resources are, for all practical purposes, infinitely large.
They are legitimately worried about becoming the resting spot for material that experts in the field have called “ultra-hazardous” and whose current caretakers believe needs to be moved to allow more productive uses of existing sites.
Because they have legitimate concerns, they have decided to go “all out” in an effort to make sure the facilities never get built. Even if licenses are awarded they will make every effort to ensure that no material is ever moved and placed on the proposed sites.
Their actions include frequent appearances by spokespersons on local radio and television talk shows. But they aren’t limiting their communications efforts to invited appearances or public meetings; they are buying air time and running scary commercials.
Arguments touting the safety of the cask storage systems or the unblemished history of moving nuclear waste are unconvincing because opponents have a extensive bibliography available that documents concerns and scary analysis from experts in government and from within the industry.
Permian Basin residents are justifiably offended by any implication that their area is desolate, needs jobs, or is better suited for storing used nuclear fuel than current sites. They adamantly disagree with any assertions that it would be logical to move fuel from a place like the coast of Maine to west Texas or New Mexico to free up “valuable” land for development.
The campaign to inform the public about their views about risks will continue as long as the controversial projects remain active.
Spokespeople for the opposition have told me personally that they are not opposed to nuclear energy. They assert that it is an important energy source that needs to be maintained, improved and developed further.
Member of Protect the Basin might someday become valued allies that will actively support long term waste disposal or interim storage projects located in better spots. But until the current projects are cancelled and there is no longer a perceived threat to their livelihoods, they will be firm and loud about their opposition to being the site for hosting used nuclear fuel.
Their professionally-designed and well-supported communications efforts will persuade even more people that the nuclear industry has no viable plan for its waste products. More people will be taught to believe that waste is a big enough reason to avoid nuclear energy and forgo its numerous advantages.
There are better locations and better paths to a future that diminishes the false perception that nuclear waste is an unmovable obstacle to further nuclear energy development. We need to abandon our current path and move towards a more productive one.
From above:
“Neither proposed poses an actual physical risk, but they are both creating new political and public perception risks…”
In other words, Greenpeace will always have a Heckler’s Veto to kill any project, anywhere, through their astroturf actions. There will never be a permanent or interim storage site because someone, somewhere, will always be afraid. I’m not saying we should just steamroll over peoples’ local opinions. It is just impossible to always satisfy everyone, and the anti-nuclear activists are usually very vocal about any proposed project.
I am sad to say that Rod as given in to cancel culture. Def: Cancel culture refers to the popular practice of withdrawing support for ( canceling) public figures and companies.
Maybe you stopped reading too quickly.
“ Protect the Basin isn’t a typical antinuclear organization. It is an initiative of the Permian Basin Coalition of Land & Royalty Owners and Operators. Their financial resources are, for all practical purposes, infinitely large.”
I’ll fight Greenpeace anytime. But sometimes strategic retreat is best course of action. Opponents here are state governments and oil & gas companies. One of the sites is a split estate where applicant doesn’t own underground mineral rights.
Ah, but this isn’t just about not wanting it in our backyard. Read all the documents filed as part of the adjudicators process and discover the many environmental risks associated with the Permian Basin, discover the IAEA (the U.S. is a member) opposition to this plan, and familiarize yourself with the fact that this specific plan is about private entities assuming government’s responsibility for lucrative contracts (hello, Rick Perry). Don’t try to make this into something it’s not.
Rod, Where have you been the last 5 years? This project started as far back as 2007 with GNEP. I have written hundreds of articles posted on my simple blog site (link below) and sent those letters and articles to local newspapers in New Mexico to educate the public. I have also emailed every elected politician in New Mexico as an influencer. I do not have deep pockets so I am communicating with the tools I can afford.
I have documented alternative solutions to “recycle and reuse” the stored nuclear fuel: http://www.kralspaces.worpress.com. Please contact me if you want more information.
What is your position on the sites? Given your statement about alternatives, do you agree they are not vital?
Rod, NM already provides enriched nuclear fuel for the LWR here in the US as a supplier – URENCO. I am proposing that NM also provide the molten salt uranium fuel supply for the MSR technology. To do that, a recycling conversion facility would be required and that is my primary interest. The best place for such a facility is right next door to a spent nuclear fuel site.
I have written all about this idea on my simple blog site. http://www.kralspaces.wordpress.com
But New Mexico’s governor has clearly stated that her state has no interest in storing used fuel.
How do you plan to convince her and here political contributors to change their mind?
Especially since official DOE policy since 1977 has been to discourage recycling.
Rod, WIPP, URENCO, and WCS are all located in the middle of the Permian Basin. You can throw that objection out the window as NCR has done. HI-STORE would actually be located on the outer rim of the Delta Basin shelve northeast of WIPP. We are talking about 300 acres with a 50 ft. subsurface pad. Here are my ten reasons that I support the HI-STORE facility:
NRC-2018-0052: Ten Reasons I support HI-STORE CISF in Lea County, NM
1) I have 100% confidence in the safe storage of spent nuclear fuel (SNF) – anywhere.
2) Spent nuclear fuel is not nuclear waste, but reusable fuel for newer advanced molten salt reactors.
3) The proposed Holtec HI-STORM UMAX system is already safely used in over-regulated California.
4) New Mexico already knows how to transport and store radioactive transuranic waste – WIPP.
5) New Mexico already knows how to manage, process, transport, and store uranium fuel – URENCO.
6) Lea and Eddy County communities are generally in support of radioactive storage facilities.
7) BNSF completely rebuilt the rail line between Clovis and Carlsbad, including street/road crossings.
8) Holtec “super safe” rail carrier has 12 axles with a cask cage on an extra-strong frame.
9) HI-STORE CISF site has enough acreage for a future heat transfer or liquid fuel conversion facility.
10) SNF is a steady multi-billion dollar industry for the State of New Mexico, subsidies not required.
I also have detail description of each on my blog site.
Martin:
Did you know that the land whose surface rights were purchased by Eddy-Lea Energy Alliance is a split estate whose subsurface mineral rights are owned by the New Mexico State Land Office?
In states like New Mexico and Texas, it’s important to understand that mineral rights holders have powerful priorities over surface land holders.
I agree completely with your item number 1 – which is why I see no urgency in moving the material from its current safe storage locations. But the nuclear industry itself has taught most citizens that nuclear waste is an enormous issue that it has not been able to solve. It has created a sense of urgency and claimed that the material has to be moved from its existing sites to protect the long term interests of the people who live near the waste. It has implied that the material inhibits conversion of the sites into more productive uses by its very presence.
With messaging like that, do you really expect the majority of a community that never had any income or experience with used nuclear fuel to welcome the chance of storing all of the material that has been accumulated over 6 decades at 60 different sites around the country?
I’ve spoken to the people who run Protect the Basin. Their objections are difficult to counter. I’ve also spoken to NEI, Orano and Holtec representatives. They have no plans to invest in a large scale effort to counter the opposition messaging. They plan to remain relatively quiet until the NRC license is awarded. Their strategy is to attend meetings and address concerns expressed by the people who take the time from their busy days to show up.
They aren’t running any ads aimed at reaching hard working people who might listen to the radio while driving to drilling sites.
I’m sorry to be the bearer of bad news. But my scouting report is quite negative about chances for success in this conflict. I recommend a strategic retreat with a significant regrouping effort that includes an honest look at strengths and weaknesses.
Rod, if you have spoken to all the players than what was the purpose of your open letter to Holtec and Interim Storage Partners? I don’t understand why you had a need to write it. I am just not sure who your audience is?
I wrote the letter because I wanted each party involved to hear what I concluded after carefully engaging – separately – with each of them. I also wanted others who were not a party to the important conversations to have access to what I had learned from them. This is what writers do.
Like you, they are free to disagree with my conclusions.
Rod, as a writer with an international audience I was taken by surprise by your strong statement opposing HI-STORE CISF in New Mexico. When you look carefully into the situation from the inside out, there is good local support for the project. Also, when you look at the project from a long-term perspective, you also see future opportunities to solve many issues with the nuclear industry across the US and more importantly the many financial benefits for NM.
From my perspective, New Mexico is the future of the nuclear industry, and the storage of waste or fuel is only one small part of the future. We have the National Labs designing and building nuclear space reactors, and other National Labs testing conversion of solid spent nuclear fuel to molten salt nuclear fuels. There are several MSR projects worldwide that will need this new fuel base.
New Mexico already manufactures LEU for earthly reactor use and could also produce the HEU for space fuel at URENCO, located in the middle of the Permian Basin. We already have the safest deep repository licensed only for transuranic nuclear waste for now at WIPP, also in the middle of the Permian Basin. Our roadways and railways have been transporting enriched nuclear fuel and transuranic waste for decades without incident that has disrupted any industry, business, or lifestyle, specifically O&G, Farmers and Ranchers, Dairy, Tourism, or any other business in New Mexico.
Terrorism is not a rational reason to not consolidate all the stored nuclear fuel across the US. It would make it more secure to be stored at this site because of its geography and isolation. Storage and transportation have been technically solved so it looks like we are down to one issue I call sociopolitical. That is the perspective you have taken while other writers like James Conca have taken a more supportive position. So we will see what happens. Thanks for all your feedback.
Martin:
Please remember that my letter was addressed to both ISP and Holtec. I am not opposed to either company’s technology. My opinion is that it is highly unlikely that either organization has the strength needed to overcome organized opposition by Permian Basin economic interests, especially the oil and gas industry.
I am just now seeing your comment and wish to reply: 1) spent nuclear fuel or away from reactor storage should not go “anywhere.” It requires extensive security and monitoring that reactor sites offer due to regulations that are nonexistent in the present case; 2) spent nuclear fuel is waste in the US because we do not reprocess or recycle; 3) if it’s so safe for California then why is Feinstein drafting language to get it the hell outta Cali; 4) NewMexico doesn’t want SNF; 5) Urenco has nothing to do with this – read NM official comments submitted to the NRC regarding Holtec’s failure to address a long list of issues raised by the state’s environmental dept.; 6) not worth my response. Shall I go on pointing out your false “facts?” You write that SNF is already a multi-billion dollar industry in New Mexico. WTH?! Completely untrue, whereas oil and gas make up over 1/3 of that state’s general fund ($5.3 billion in 2021 fiscal yr). Oh, and it’s not proposed to be located on the “Delta Basin.” It’s the Delaware Basin and nowhere near WIPP. check yourself, Marty, because you’re way off.
I am just now seeing your comment and wish to reply: 1) spent nuclear fuel or away from reactor storage should not go “anywhere.” It requires extensive security and monitoring that reactor sites offer due to regulations that are nonexistent in the present case; 2) spent nuclear fuel is waste in the US because we do not reprocess or recycle; 3) if it’s so safe for California then why is Feinstein drafting language to get it the hell outta Cali; 4) NewMexico doesn’t want SNF; 5) Urenco has nothing to do with this – read NM official comments submitted to the NRC regarding Holtec’s failure to address a long list of issues raised by the state’s environmental dept.; 6) not worth my response. Shall I go on pointing out your false “facts?” You write that SNF is already a multi-billion dollar industry in New Mexico. WTH?! Completely untrue, whereas oil and gas make up over 1/3 of that state’s general fund ($5.3 billion in 2021 fiscal yr). Oh, and it’s not proposed to be located on the “Delta Basin.” It’s the Delaware Basin and nowhere near WIPP. check yourself, Marty, because you’re way off.
I support HI-STORE 100%. My reasons as all stated on my blog site. http://www.kralspaces.wordpress.com
Rod, the previous Governor supported HI-STORE and O&G. This Governor doesn’t support either. I suspect O&G will invest in her removal in 2022.
A DOE policy from 1977 is a bit out of date. Technology has moved on.
Technology advances are terrific, but don’t matter much without a policy change. I favor the necessary policy change, but I don’t see much pressure from industry.
Dr. Baranwal has made the right statements, but unless I’ve missed something the policy remains the same.
And so does the money.
Dr. Baranwal is talking to Holtec:
https://holtecinternational.com/2020/10/21/holtec-hosts-doe-assistant-secretary-at-its-technology-headquarters-in-camden-new-jersey/
@Rod: kind of reminds of the old adage, “Never pick a fight with people who buy ink by the barrel.”
I hate the idea of a strategic retreat here, in part because of the fact that this represents an excellent location from a technical perspective (geology, climate) with a proven track record for LLW operations (i.e., WCS’s site in Andrews County). And I really bristle at the notion of bowing to a heckler’s veto.
With that said, it’s a fair point that it would be a fool’s errand to run up against a well-financed opposition that is happy to throw as much money at the issue as they need to, especially when the industry groups on the advocate side aren’t willing to do the same.