Centralized Storage

With the scientifically unsound proposed Yucca Mountain radioactive waste dump now canceled, the danger of "interim" storage threatens. This means that radioactive waste could be "temporarily" parked in open air lots, vulnerable to accident and attack, while a new repository site is sought.



WCS has requested that NRC restart its licensing proceeding for a CISF in Andrews County, TX

Logo for Interim Storage Partners, a new name for Waste Control Speclaists, LLC's proposed CISF in western TexasBad news update: Waste Control Specialists, LLC in Andrews County, western Texas -- just 40 miles from the Holtec site in southeastern New Mexico -- has requested NRC restart its license application proceeding for a CISF (Centralized Interim Storage Facility), suspended a year ago due to the company's bankruptcy!

See the June 8, 2018 letter sent to NRC by the latest incarnation of the WCS CISF nuclear industry consortium, requesting a restart of the licensing proceeding.

WCS proposes to "temporarily" store 40,000 metric tons of highly radioactive irradiated nuclear fuel, as well as highly radioactive so-called "Greater-Than-Class-C low-level radioactive waste" (GTCC LLRW) on the state line of New Mexico in extreme western Texas, just four miles from the Hispanic community of Eunice, New Mexico.

The WCS CISF has adopted a new name and logo -- Interim Storage Partners. See left. Note that the logo could indicate an interest to engage in so-called "recycling" of the highly radioactive irradiated nuclear fuel -- that is, reprocessing.

The Eddy-Lea Energy Alliance (ELEA), the partner with Holtec International in a second CISF scheme located just 40 miles away from WCS across the TX/NM state line, also uses a logo -- a recycling symbol surrounding an atom -- that clearly indicates its desire to reprocess the 173,600 metric tons of commercial irradiated nuclear fuel it has proposed "temporarily storing" there.

Reprocessing is a very bad idea, as has been shown in France. But then again, a major partner of WCS's CISF, and now Interim Storage Partners, is Areva of France, which has recently changed its name to Orano. Before it was called Areva, it was called Cogema. Areva/Orano engages in large-scale irradiated nuclear fuel reprocessing in France.

Reprocessing risks nuclear weapons proliferation. It also causes very large-scale releases of hazardous radioactivity into air and water, even during so-called "routine operations" (let alone a catastrophic accident, as occurred in Khystym in the Ural Mountains of Russian Siberia in 1957). And reprocessing is astronomically expensive -- and the public will be asked to pay for it all. See Beyond Nuclear's pamphlet for more info.

The new owner announced several weeks ago it intended to request a restart of the proceeding, and has now done so.


Get your community to pass a resolution opposing CISFs, and the Mobile Chernobyls they would launch across the country!

***Good news update! Bernalillo County, New Mexico, home to the state's largest city, Albuquerque, passed a resolution on June 12 opposing Holtec. The resolution passed by a unanimous vote of 4 to 0! As soon as the official text of the resolution is available, we will post a link to it here.***

The groundswell of resistance against Holtec International/Eddy-Lea [Counties] Energy Alliance's proposed centralized interim storage facility (CISF) for highly radioactive irradiated nuclear fuel has included resolutions (sometimes called memorials), passed by elected bodies of local government.

For example, New Mexico's largest city, Albuquerque, passed a city council memorial against the Holtec/ELEA CISF on May 21, 2018.

The city of Jal, in NM's southeast corner which is targeted for the Holtec/ELEA CISF, passed a resolution against the scheme on May 29, 2018.

But the first municipality in NM to pass a resolution against the Holtec/ELEA CISF was Lake Arthur, also in the southeastern corner of the state, on September 7, 2017.

Please urge your city council, county commission, and even state legislature to consider passing a resolution or similar measure in opposition to Holtec/ELEA's CISF, and the high-risk, highly radioactive waste trucks, trains, and/or barges it would launch by the many thousands, over the course of decades. You can use the NM resolutions above as models, which your elected officials can use to write their own resolutions.

But you can also use resolutions passed by Texas communities as models for resolutions in your area. These were passed last year, in opposition to another CISF, this one called Waste Control Specialists, LLC in Andrews County, west Texas. Although the licensing proceeding for WCS's CISF was suspended last summer, as Bloomberg Environment has reported, that licensing proceeding could restart in June 2018:

Nuclear services company Orano USA [formerly known as Areva, the U.S. arm of the French government owned nuclear giant] and Waste Control Specialists will ask regulators in June to resume reviewing an application to bring used fuel to a site that already stores low-level waste. The focus is on fuel from shuttered reactors, said Jeff Isakson, CEO of the joint venture Interim Storage Partners.

Thanks to the website No Nuclear Waste Aqui (Aqui means "here" in Spanish) for providing these links to the Texas resolutions:

County Resolutions:

Holtec/ELEA's CISF would involve significantly more highly radioactive irradiated nuclear fuel than would the proposed Yucca Mountain, Nevada permanent burial dump, under current law. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act, as Amended, limits the Yucca dump to a total of 70,000 Metric Tons of highly radioactive waste, only 63,000 MT of which could be commercial irradiated nuclear fuel.

By contrast, the Holtec/ELEA CISF could store as much as 173,600 MT of commercial irradiated nuclear fuel, or nearly three times as much as current law would allow at the Yucca dump!

Transport impacts across the country, from the high-risk shipment (by truck, train, and/or barge) of irradiated nuclear fuel, would thus be that much worse in relation to the Holtec/ELEA CISF than they would be for the Yucca, NV dump.

If also constructed and operated, the WCS CISF in w. TX would add up to another 40,000 MT of commercial irradiated nuclear fuel onto the roads, rails, and/or waterways, bound for the TX/NM borderlands. Holtec/ELEA and WCS are only 40 miles away from each other, across the state line!

The State of Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects has published the following route maps, and shipment numbers, in the context of the 70,000 MT Yucca dump. You'll see that 44 states, many major cities, and 330 of the 435 U.S. congressional districts across the country would be impacted by Yucca-bound shipments:

While NV-bound, and TX/NM borderlands-bound, waste shipments would not follow the exact same routes, the further away from the American Southwest that waste shipments originate, the more similar or even identical would be the initial routing for waste exports -- as from atomic reactors on the East and West Coasts, as well as the Midwest and Southeast. Only as the shipments came closer to their final destination (NV, or TX/NM), would the routes then diverge. So the Yucca-bound route maps above give a good idea, in many parts of the country, as to the routes that NM- or TX-bound waste shipments would also follow.

All that said, that is not even the whole story about transport risks. There is also the potential for very large numbers of high-risk barge shipments on surface waterways -- on the oceans, along seacoasts; on rivers; on the Great Lakes. See these backgrounders. Although these particular barge shipment routes are in the context of the Yucca dump, these very same waterways could and would be used for barge shipments invovled in the NM/TX CISF schemes.

And check out these resolutions, passed decades ago in the fight against the Yucca dump:

Get your local community to pass a resolution opposing nuclear waste shipments through it! - Sample Resolution

Several jurisdictions have passed resolutions or taken other action against dangerous and unnecessary radioactive waste transportation based on the sample below. These include:


  • United Transportation Union (2/25/1999) ;
  • Gary, IN 6/1/1999;

These are posted at this archived NIRS website (see the right hand side margin).

Note that many, but not all, of the listed resolutions above have hot links. So pass your cursor over the name of the municipality, and click through to see the resolution, for many (but not all) of them.

Although dated and in need of updating, as well as "translation" from the Yucca issue to the current CISF issue in TX/NM, they can nonetheless provide more sample language for the composing of resolutions in your community! (We also need resolutions against the Yucca dump and the Mobile Chernobyls it would launch, as pro-Yucca dump advocates strive to resurrect that zombie nuke waste dump!)

As the archived NIRS site reads:

If you know of others which already have taken action, let us know. Join the fun, get your local government to pass a resolution too.

(Just to show how powerful such resolution campaigns can be, check out the work of Stop the Great Lakes Nuclear Dump. At last count, STGLND had gathered 230 resolutions, representing 23.4 million people in the Great Lakes region, in opposition to Ontario Power Generation's scheme to bury "low" and "intermediate" level radioactive wastes on the shore of the Great Lakes. This resolutions drive has been an essential part of staving off, thus far, this insane proposal, which would put at risk the drinking water supply for 40 million people in numerous U.S. states, two Canadian provinces, and a large number of Native American First Nations. Learn more about this issue at STGLND's website, as well as at Beyond Nuclear's CANADA website section. We need to build the same momentum against CISFs, by passing resolutions all along the transport routes across the U.S.!)


Help stop environmentally unjust highly radioactive waste dump in NM! Continue submitting public comments to NRC!

Noel Marquez, co-founder of Alliance for Environmental Strategies, at the NRC public comment meeting in Albuquerque, with the tee shirt and banner he designed.Opponents to Holtec International/Eddy-Lea [Counties] Energy Alliance's proposed centralized interim storage facility (CISF) for 173,600 metric tons of highly radioactive irradiated nuclear fuel, targeted at southeast New Mexico, have dominated the half-dozen U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) public comment meetings over the past five weeks. (See the photo, left, by Maddy Hayden of the Albuquerque Journal, of Noel Marquez of Artesia, NM, co-founder of the Alliance for Environmental Strategies (AFES), wearing a t-shirt and in front of a banner, both of which he designed, at the May 22nd public meeting in Albuquerque.)

Please continue to submit comments -- by email, and/or snail mail -- and urge others to do so as well (NRC's webform, at, has not worked since May 18th, begging the question, if they can't even get this right, how can we trust them to keep highly radioactive waste safe and secure forevermore?!). See how to submit comments and use sample comments, to help you prepare your own, by the current July 30 deadline.

Please also contact both your U.S. Senators, and urge them to block H.R. 3053, the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2018, or any other legislation, that would authorize similar CISFs . Please also urge your U.S. Sens., as well as your U.S. Rep., to support requests by a coalition of 52 environmental groups, including Beyond Nuclear, by themselves contacting NRC and requesting public comment meetings in your state and congressional district. Thus far, not a single public in-person meeting has been held outside of NM, other than one at the NRC HQ in Rockville, MD (which the agency did very little to even notify the public about). This is unacceptable, in that most states would experience very large numbers of road and/or rail shipments of highly radioactive waste, by truck and/or train, if Holtec/ELEA's CISF opens; some states would even experience barge shipments on surface waterways. You can look up your two U.S. Sens.' contact info. here, and your U.S. Rep.'s contact info. here (please also take this opportunity to thank your U.S. Rep. for voting right -- against, a NO vote -- on H.R. 3053, or express your disappointment about them voting wrong -- for the bill, an AYE vote; see how your U.S. Rep. voted, here). Or you can phone your congress members' offices via the U.S. Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121. Please spread the word to your networks re: the importance of submitting public comments to NRC opposing this environmental injustice (southeast NM has a large percentage of Hispanic residents; the area is already heavily polluted by fossil fuel and nuclear industries). For more info., see Beyond Nuclear's Centralized Storage website section.

Holtec Pitches a Precursor to Yucca Mountain for Nuclear Waste

As reported by Brenna Goth at Bloomberg Environment:

Holtec Pitches a Precursor to Yucca Mountain for Nuclear Waste

Posted May 31, 2018, 7:29 AM

·   Proposal would move used fuel from nuclear reactors to rural New Mexico

·   Utilities looking for options as permanent storage site stalls

·   Local backers face opposition, hurdles in Congress

A proposed 1,000-acre project in southeastern New Mexico could temporarily address a question that bedevils energy companies, confounds policymakers, and polarizes communities: where to put the country’s most dangerous commercial nuclear waste.

The federal government is two decades behind its deadline to open permanent storage deep underground to put used fuel from commercial nuclear power plants. Leaders in southeastern New Mexico say they’re ready to keep the hot, radioactive materials that those plants want gone until a long-term solution is ready at Nevada’s Yucca Mountain or elsewhere.

Nuclear technology company Holtec International is working with an alliance of local governments there to pitch a project that eventually could store up to 120,000 metric tons of used fuel—more than U.S. nuclear reactors have created to date. Utilities such as Southern California Edison are watching to see if they’ll soon have an option to move waste off their sites.

Federal regulators are reviewing Holtec’s initial application to hold 500 canisters of used fuel between the cities of Carlsbad and Hobbs, near the Texas border. But a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission alone won’t be enough to launch the facility.

Backers must push Congress to change the law that governs national nuclear waste storage, or find another way to fund the project. Critics say opposition will prevent the site from ever receiving a shipment of waste in a state that has no commercial nuclear power plants of its own.

And New Mexico state leaders may change their take on the proposal, depending on who is elected in November to replace Gov. Susana Martinez (R). Martinez and the Legislature have supported the storage concept, though some lawmakers are asking for a closer look at the plan.

State officials currently don’t have enough information on its impacts to take a stance, said New Mexico state Sen. Jeff Steinborn (D), who heads a committee on radioactive materials.

“We shouldn’t start with the position of ‘Sure, why not?’” Steinborn told Bloomberg Environment.

Site Near Other Waste Project

Camden, N.J.,-based Holtec is among the first companies in the U.S. proposing a central, interim site to hold the byproduct of nuclear energy creation. The waste comes from power plants that use uranium fuel to produce electricity until it’s “spent,” or no longer efficient.

The fuel rods remain radioactive for thousands of years. Plant operators move them to steel-lined pools and later to dry casks.

The U.S. Department of Energy is responsible for permanent disposal of the rods, but plans to develop a facility at Yucca Mountain have stalled for decades amid vehement opposition from Nevada officials. Temporary storage aims to consolidate waste more quickly from dozens of sites throughout the country. 

Leaders in two New Mexico counties say they have the perfect location. Their consortium, the Eddy-Lea Energy Alliance LLC, owns more than 1,000 acres of dry, vacant land and solicited proposals for nuclear storage.

The location is more than 30 miles from the nearest town and close to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, or WIPP. That Energy Department facility stores nuclear waste that’s trucked in from defense plants, such as contaminated tools and rags, in underground salt mines. Most WIPP waste isn’t as as “hot” as high-level waste; Alpha particles in the plutonium from it can’t penetrate skin or even a sheet of paper. But the WIPP waste is still extremely deadly if absorbed into the bloodstream and remains radioactive for thousands of years.

Sealed canisters of used fuel for the Holtec site would arrive in New Mexico by train in transport casks designed to shield radiation. The company would place spent fuel underground in individual enclosures that could eventually be moved to permanent storage elsewhere.

The storage facility is designed to be impenetrable, Joy Russell, vice president of corporate business development at Holtec International, told Bloomberg Environment.

“No conceivable natural or man-made phenomenon could actually impact the fuel,” she said.

The NRC is considering an initial license that would let Holtec store 500 canisters for four decades. Twenty planned phases could eventually bring 10,000 canisters to the site, according to the company.

Holtec will fund the license process but needs a policy change or agreement with utilities to actually build the project, Russell said. Federal law doesn’t allow the Energy Department to pay to transport and store spent fuel temporarily.

Congress moved to open that door earlier this month when the House passed H.R. 3053. The bill, now before the Senate, would restart technical work on Yucca Mountain—which President Barack Obama mothballed—while enabling interim storage.

Lawmakers such as Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) say the idea of interim storage holds promise.

A private interim facility would be “the quickest, and probably the least expensive, way for the federal government to start to meet its used nuclear fuel obligations,” Alexander, who chairs the Senate Appropriations Committee panel that funds the Energy Department, said last year.

Fuel Could Get Moved Quicker

Companies such as Southern California Edison also see promise in the Holtec project and similar proposals for their decommissioned nuclear plants. The utility owns San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, located between San Diego and Los Angeles, which closed in 2013.

A group of California nuclear power plant owners backs options to help them relocate spent fuel, spokeswoman Maureen Brown told Bloomberg Environment in an email. The plants store their waste on site, which is safe but a cost burden for customers, she said.

Utilities throughout the country have sued the federal government for delays in opening Yucca Mountain or another permanent facility and leaving them to store their own fuel. The Department of Energy paid the industry more than $6 billion in damages by the end of fiscal year 2016, according to the Government Accountability Office.

An interim facility could be the fastest way to move spent fuel as work continues on a permanent site, Jon Rund, associate general counsel for the Nuclear Energy Institute, told Bloomberg Environment.

“You’re able to then redevelop those sites for other purposes,” he said. 

Possible Competition

The institute, the nuclear industry’s lobbing arm, is particularly encouraged by the possibility of competition for temporary storage, Rund said. A proposal put on hold last year in Andrews County, Texas, is starting again under a new partnership.

Nuclear services company Orano USA and Waste Control Specialists will ask regulators in June to resume reviewing an application to bring used fuel to a site that already stores low-level waste. The focus is on fuel from shuttered reactors, said Jeff Isakson, CEO of the joint venture Interim Storage Partners.

The projects would be welcome news to most people who live near the San Onofre plant, said David Victor, chair of the San Onofre Community Engagement Panel and a professor of international relations at University of California-San Diego. Spent fuel is the most talked about issue at the public meetings on decommissioning the panel leads.

The worst-case scenario is to have the legacy of the plant without its benefits, Victor said. But he said residents also don’t want to dump their problem on an unwilling community.

“Consent is really important,” Victor said. 

‘Land of High-Level Nuclear Waste’

No consensus on the Holtec project was apparent at a recent meeting in Carlsbad, a city that draws tourists to nearby limestone caverns of the same name. Nuclear Regulatory Commission members stayed late into the night to hear comments on the earliest stages of their environmental review, which its staff expects to complete in mid-2020.

Regulators need to consider a host of potential consequences, said Dan Hancock, director of the nuclear waste safety program and administrator at the environmental group Southwest Research and Information Center in Albuquerque. Hancock, who opposes the project, said he generally thinks interim nuclear waste storage is unnecessary.

The nuclear workforce in the area has no experience with commercial spent fuel, he said. The safety record of WIPP, which stores a much different type of waste and receives shipments via truck and not rail, doesn’t translate, he said.

Proponents tout WIPP’s overall safety record, but opponents point to recent problems.

WIPP first opened in 1999 to permanently store waste from Cold War nuclear weapons production sites. It shut down in February 2014 after a fire and release of radiation, reopening again in January 2017.

A leak at the Holtec site could impact one of the country’s most productive oil and gas fields, while an oil and gas explosion could threaten stored waste, Hancock said. The country’s rail system can’t handle the heavy cars needed to transport spent fuel, he said.

“I think there is close to zero chance this facility will ever operate,” Hancock told Bloomberg Environment. “Transportation would be very dangerous, and an accident would disrupt a lot of existing industries that are much more economically beneficial than anything that the Holtec site would be.”

City councilors in Albuquerque, the state’s largest city, last week voted to approve a statement expressing opposition to rail shipments through the city, citing the transportation risks.

Other opponents said the project goes beyond New Mexico to impact anyone who lives near a transportation route. Even many area residents don’t know about the proposal, Rose Gardner from the Alliance for Environmental Strategies told regulators.

Gardner, of Eunice, N.M., said people who do know about the project are anxious about impacts on the rivers and lakes that give New Mexico its “Land of Enchantment” moniker.

“We are not going to be considered the land of high-level nuclear waste,” she said.

Political Concerns

The state’s three gubernatorial candidates competing in the Democratic primary either oppose the project or want more information. Republican candidate Rep. Steve Pearce, though, said it could boost New Mexico’s national nuclear profile.

Rep. Michelle Lujan Grisham (D), one of the Democrats running for governor, voted against the House-passed legislation that would move Yucca Mountain forward because of her opposition to the Holtec proposal.

“This bill will only create more uncertainty by creating a dangerous loophole that could permanently strand nuclear waste in New Mexico without any guarantee that a long-term strategy will eventually be agreed upon,” Lujan Grisham said in a statement.

Sen. Tom Udall (D) echoed those concerns, saying he wants a permanent storage site before opening a temporary one.

“If you open up an interim facility before you do a permanent one, you’ve just created a permanent facility,” Udall told Bloomberg Environment.

Supporters Have ‘Nationalistic Spirit’

Supporters characterize the concerns as hype. The project is actually more benign than most industrial endeavors, said John Heaton, chair of the Eddy-Lea Energy Alliance and a former state lawmaker.

“It’s all of these ‘what ifs,’” Heaton told Bloomberg Environment, referring to critics’ concerns. “There are answers to all of these ‘what ifs.’”

Backers say they’re confident in Holtec’s safety record and casks tested to withstand drops, punctures, fires, and submersion underwater. Holtec points to all the nuclear waste already safely shipped by rail.

For southeastern New Mexico, the project means new jobs and a continuous cash flow provided through an agreement with Holtec, Hobbs Mayor Sam Cobb said. That money could be used to keep steadier an economy based largely on oil and gas, he told Bloomberg Environment.

“It could level out some of those peaks and valleys that we have,” Cobb said.

Holtec said at a hearing that the project would create about 100 construction jobs for 10 years as well as another 100 permanent operations jobs.

Other local supporters said New Mexico has a moral duty to help communities move their nuclear waste. Many said they are proud of WIPP and its role in cleaning up waste sites.

“We have this nationalistic spirit about what we’re doing,” Heaton said.

—With assistance from David Schultz.

To contact the reporter on this story: Brenna Goth in Phoenix at

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Rachael Daigle at


City Jal, NM passes resolution opposing Holtec/ELEA CISF!

The City of Jal, New Mexico, is located in the southeastern corner of the state. This is the same area which is targeted for Holtec International/Eddy-Lea [Counties] Energy Alliance's proposed centralized interim storage facility for highly radioactive irradiated nuclear fuel. On May 29, the City of Jal passed a resolution opposing the scheme.