attachment 1 to holtec letter 5025041 - nrc: home page(holtec, 2017b) should be revised to address...

Attachment 1 to Holtec Letter 5025041 HI‐STORE RAI Part 4 Responses

of 52

ER‐GEN‐1: Provide an update of the status of proposed, pending, and approved licenses, authorizations, and permits specifically for the proposed Holtec CISF. The information provided should identify (i) the issuing agency; (ii) the type of license, permit, or approval needed; and (iii) the current status of securing the license, permit, or approval. In addition to the information provided in ER Section 1.4 (Applicable Regulatory Requirements, Permits, and Required Consultations) and ER Table 1.4.1 (Holtec, 2017b), provide in tabular format the current status (i.e., issued, under review, yet to be submitted) of Federal, State, Tribal, or local approvals, authorizations, and permits that would be necessary for constructing and operating the proposed CISF. Also, verify that the proposed rail spur is not a common carrier line and therefore would not require a permit from the Surface Transportation Board to approve the construction and operation of the proposed rail spur that would service the proposed CISF in accordance with 49 USC 10901. This information is needed to complete the description of the proposed action and evaluate its environmental impacts. This additional information is needed in accordance with 10 CFR 51.45(b), and (c), which requires that the ER include a description of the affected environment, and contain sufficient data to aid the NRC in its development of an independent analysis. Holtec Response Section 1.4 was revised to provide discussion in regard to the Rail Spur being designated as a non‐carrier private spur. Therefore, it will not require a permit from the Surface Transportation Board (STB). Section 1.4 was also revised to clarify permitting related to the Rail Spur crossing NM243, as well as the rerouting of Laguna Road CR55. Table 1.4.1 was revised to accurately reflect all required Permits. The following table details the status of each related permit or authorization.


of 52

Activity Covered Agency NPR* Initial Survey Complete

Yet to be Submitted

Under Review

Issued Comments

Federal

License Application NRC Submitted March 31, 2017

Land Use Permit BLM See ROC in Appendix A (Cisneros)

Endangered Species Act USFWS Surveys complete, informal consultation conducted (Appendix B of ER). No T&E species present.

Permitting/Authorization for Rail Spur

STB Rail spur is a non‐carrier private spur and not under STB jurisdiction.

State

National Historic Preservation Act

New Mexico State Historic Preservation Office

Surveys complete, informal consultation conducted (Appendix C of ER). Two prehistoric sites identified as eligible for listing in National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Avoidance is recommended.

NM243 Rail Road Spur ROW Crossing

NMDOT Holtec would apply for the permit prior to construction.

Air Quality Permit NMED See RAI ER‐AQ‐2

General Construction Permit NMED Holtec would apply for the permit prior to construction.

Groundwater Discharge Permit/Plan

NMED Holtec would apply for the permit prior to construction.

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Industrial Stormwater


NPDES Construction Stormwater Permit

NMED

Holtec would apply for the permit prior to construction.

Hazardous Waste Generation and Storage


Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Notification of Hazardous Waste Activity to obtain an EPA Identification Number

NMED Holtec would apply for the ID number prior to generation of waste during facility construction and operation.

Petroleum Storage Tank Registration

NMED Holtec would register storage tanks as required.

Local

Reroute of Laguna Road Lea Co. Road Department

See Appendix A; no authorizations/ permits required as road is on private land.


of 52

RAI ER‐PA‐1: Given the maximum capacity of the canisters identified in the initial license application for all phases, provide information on whether an increase in the amount of SNF stored at the site from the 5,000 MTU [5,512 tons] to 8,680 MTU [9,568 tons] would change any characterization of the proposed action’s impacts across all resource areas (e.g., land use, public and occupational health, air quality, and cost benefit) as presented in the ER. The ER (Holtec, 2017b) states that up to 5,000 MTU [5, 512 tons] would be stored at the CISF for Phase 1 and for each phase up to 20 phases. However, the certified maximum capacity for the proposed Holtec Umax canister type could be up to 8,680 MTU [9,568 tons] of SNF for a 40‐year license term. The evaluation of impacts across all resource areas should be revised as needed to address the increased capacity of the fuel to be stored at the CISF. For example, the cost benefit analyses in ER Chapter 9 (Holtec, 2017b) should be revised to address the maximum amount of fuel that could be stored for Phase 1 as well as cumulatively for all phases (full implementation). Current cost estimates in ER Table 9.2.1 to 9.2.6 (Holtec, 2017b) are based on 5,000 MTU [5,512 tons] for Phase 1 and 100,000 MTU [110,231 tons] for full implementation with the estimated cost for transporting SNF based on $26,000 per MTU. However, based on the potential canister maximum capacity, if all twenty phases store 8,680 MTU [9,568 tons], the cost for transporting SNF would increase from $5.2 billion, as stated in the ER, to over $9 billion (see ER Table 9.2.6). This additional information is needed in accordance with 10 CFR 51.45(b), (b)(1), and (c), which requires that the ER include a description of the affected environment, discuss the impacts of the proposed action, and include consideration of the benefits and costs of the proposed action and its alternatives. Holtec Response

The information presented in the ER for Phase 1 is based on 500 canisters. Depending on the types of

canisters stored, the metric tons of uranium may differ. Therefore, for the first phase, with the large

capacity canisters from the current HI‐STORM UMAX certificate, 500 canisters is the equivalent of 8,680

MTU. For future phases, which may incorporate smaller capacity canisters, the expected metric tons of

uranium would be lower, closer to 5,000 MTU or even less in some cases, therefore, the overall capacity

of the site after 20 phases is 100,000 MTU. Holtec is not requesting environmental review of more than

100,000 MTU, and has evaluated the environmental impacts of that total. It should be noted that the

Phase 1 values were based on number of canisters, and this has been updated in Chapter 9.

RAI‐ER‐PA‐2: Provide additional information on the anticipated rail spur. This information should include:

The status of any Federal, State, and local permits or approvals that would be required to construct and operate the rail spur. ER Table 1.4.1 (Holtec, 2017b) lists a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) permit requirement, but text in ER Section 1.4.2.6 (Holtec, 2017b) also states that a New Mexico Department of Transportation permit would be required (see also GEN‐1).

Description and location (figure) containing the revised location of the rail spur including any additional construction structures (e.g., cattle crossings) that are needed to comply with BLM requirements.

The volume of soil that would be excavated during construction and potentially stockpiled during operation of the rail spur and available information on the disposition of the stockpiled soil.


of 52

An assessment of the environmental impacts that construction, operation, and decommissioning of the rail spur would have on all resource areas (i.e., land use, transportation, geology and soils, water resources, air quality, ecology, historic and cultural resources, noise, visual and scenic, etc.).

Any mitigation measures that would be implemented to reduce the environmental impacts associated with construction, operation, and decommissioning of the rail spur on all resource areas.

Any environmental measures and monitoring that would be required during construction, operation, and decommissioning of the rail spur to comply with any applicable Federal, State, and local rules and regulations.

ER Section 1.3 (Holtec, 2017b) states that an approximately 15.9 hectares [39.4 acres] of land would be disturbed as part of rail spur construction to deliver SNF to the proposed CISF from the rail main line. The ER provides limited information on the construction, operation, and decommissioning activities associated with the rail spur. This additional information is needed in accordance with 10 CFR 51.45(b) and (b)(1), which requires that the ER include a description of the proposed action and discuss the impacts of the proposed action. Holtec Response: For a status of all permits, see the response to RAI ER‐GEN‐1. Table 1.4.1 was revised to clarify the permits related to the Rail Spur. Figure 2.2.1 was updated to show the currently staked rail line location, as agreed to by BLM. Section 1.3 was updated to include estimated volumes of excavated material, along with additional discussion on stockpiling of soil on site. Chapters 4, 6, and 7 have been updated to clarify that the rail spur was taken into consideration when assessing environmental impacts, mitigation measures, and site monitoring. RAI ER‐PA‐3: Provide additional information on the anticipated concrete batch plant. This information should include:

• A publicly available figure with the location and size (acreage) of the concrete batch plant showing its location with respect to the proposed CISF. [Figures 2.2.2 and 2.2.3 in the ER (Holtec, 2017b) have been redacted, and are therefore not considered publicly available.]

• The design of the concrete batch plant (description of major components) and associated infrastructure (access roads, pipelines, utilities, etc.).

• Identify if the concrete batch plant is stationary or mobile, and clarify if there will be one or two concrete batch plants.

• Any state and local permits or approvals that would be required to construct and operate the concrete batch plant.

• A description of construction, operation, and decommissioning activities for the concrete batch plant and an anticipated schedule for construction, operation, and decommissioning.

• Local natural resources (such as groundwater and geologic materials) and manpower needed to construct and operate the plant; and whether or not construction and operation workers for the batch plant are already included in the resource impacts analysis in the ER (transportation, socioeconomics, etc.).

• Amount of land that would be disturbed during construction and operation of the concrete batch plant and associated infrastructure.


of 52

• An assessment of the environmental impacts that construction, operation, and decommissioning (currently not included in ER discussion) of the concrete batch plant would have on all resource areas (i.e., land use, transportation, geology and soils, water resources, air quality, ecology, visual and scenic and historic and cultural resources, noise, etc.).

• Any mitigation measures that would be implemented to reduce the environmental impacts on all resource areas associated with construction, operation, and decommissioning of the concrete batch plant.

• Any environmental measures and monitoring that would be required during construction, operation, and decommissioning of the concrete batch plant to comply with state and local rules and regulations.

In ER Section 2.2.2.6 (Holtec, 2017b), Holtec indicates that a concrete batch plant may be used to facilitate storage module construction and future expansion. The concrete batch plant would be located north of the parking lot outside of the protected area. This additional information is needed in accordance with 10 CFR 51.45(b) and (b)(1), which requires that the ER include a description of the proposed action and discuss the impacts of the proposed action. Holtec Response: Figures 2.2.2 and 2.2.3 have been revised for public availability. Section 2.2.2.6 has been updated to provide additional information about the mobile batch plant, including footprint, components, production rate, and permitting (Table 1.4.1 was specifically updated to clarify the related permits). It should be noted that a second batch plant will only be mobilized if production rates warrant the addition. Additionally, the operation of the mobile batch plant was, in fact, included in the man‐power estimates provided for construction of the facility. Similar to the response provided in ER‐PA‐2, Chapters 4, 6, and 7 have been updated to clarify that the concrete batch plant was included when assessing environmental impacts, mitigation measures, and site monitoring. ER‐PA‐4: Provide additional information on the use of heavy haul trucks and the construction, operation, and decommissioning of an intermodal facility (as a transportation option instead of a rail spur). This information should include:

• The status of any Federal, State, and local permits or approvals that would be required to construct and operate the intermodal facility; specifically, any additional BLM permits needed if the intermodal facility is constructed on BLM land. This information should also be included as part of the response to RAI GEN‐1. (see also GEN‐1).

• Description and location (including one or more figures) containing the location, size (acreage) of the intermodal facility, and any additional access roads or construction structures required to comply with BLM guidelines.

• The design of the intermodal facility, including a description of major components, and associated infrastructure (e.g., access roads).

• The volume of soil that would be excavated during construction and potentially stockpiled during operation of the intermodal facility and available information on the disposition of the stockpiled soil.

• An assessment of the environmental impacts that construction, operation, and decommissioning of the intermodal facility would have on all resource areas (i.e., land use,


of 52

transportation, geology and soils, water resources, air quality, ecology, historic and cultural resources, noise, visual and scenic, etc.).

• Any mitigation measures that would be implemented to reduce the environmental impacts associated with construction, operation, and decommissioning of the intermodal facility on all resource areas.

• Any environmental measures and monitoring that would be required during construction, operation, and decommissioning of the intermodal facility to comply with any applicable Federal, State, and local rules and regulations.

• Information on the transportation routes the heavy haul trucks would use to access the CISF, including a figure of the proposed routes.

Throughout the ER (Holtec, 2017b), construction, operation, and decommissioning of a rail spur are discussed, which would provide transportation for the site‐access portion of the rail route. However, ER Section 4.9.3.1 (page 4‐33) states that in the event that a rail spur is not constructed, transportation of the SNF for the final 6.1 km [3.8 mi] to the site would be accomplished by heavy haul trucks. Holtec should clarify whether the proposed action includes two possible methods for transporting SNF from the existing rail line to the CISF. If the proposed action includes the use of heavy haul trucks and an associated intermodal facility to transfer the SNF casks from the main rail line to the heavy haul truck, provide a discussion of environmental impacts associated with the construction, operation, and decommissioning of the intermodal facility and use of heavy haul trucks. This additional information is needed in accordance with 10 CFR 51.45(b) and (b)(1), which requires that the ER include a description of the proposed action and discuss the impacts of the proposed action. Holtec Response Holtec is no longer pursuing the use of heavy haul trucks for the transport of spent nuclear fuel from the main rail line to the CISF. Any discussion relative to this option has been removed from the report. The proposed action only considers the use of a rail spur. Section 8.1.9 has been updated to clarify that SNF transportation is via railway systems. ER‐PA‐5: Clarify the project schedule by project year so that each project phase (1‐20) clearly identifies which project stages (i.e., construction, operation, decommissioning) are active for each phase over the entire licensed life. For each project stage, detail what activities are occurring and what equipment is in use. ER Section 1.3 and ER Table 1.3 (Holtec, 2017b) provide a schedule of proposed construction stages for all phases of the CISF. The schedule in ER Table 1.3 does not identify how the operation or decommissioning stages are incorporated into the project schedule. Also, the schedule only addresses the first half of the forty year license period and does not describe potential overlap between the operation and decommissioning stages. The evaluation should address whether the overlap of stages (construction, operation, and decommissioning) among the phases (1‐20) affects the direct or indirect impacts to any resource. This additional information is needed in accordance with 10 CFR 51.45(b) and (b)(1), which requires that the ER include a description of the proposed action and discuss the impacts of the proposed action. Holtec Response


of 52

Table 1.3 was revised to clarify the project schedule and better represent the overlap of Construction and Operating stages for each of the 20 phases of the project. A note was added to clarify that Decommissioning activities will overlap with the final years of the operation only stage. As stated throughout the report (e.g. section 4.0) the overlap of each construction stage with operating stages of previously constructed phases is accounted for in the assessment. ER‐PA‐6: Clarify the inconsistencies regarding the assumptions of title (ownership) for the fuel transported to the Holtec CISF. ER Section 3.9 (Holtec, 2017b) states that the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) would be responsible for transporting the SNF; however, the footnote in SAR Table 1.0.2 (Holtec, 2017c) states that the CISF would not be constructed unless an agreement with the user/payer for storing the used fuel (DOE and/or a nuclear plant owner) has been established. Additional information is required if some of the transportation would be carried out by private entities. For example, the ER states that for the transportation worker dose that the DOE administrative dose limit of 5 mSv/yr [500 mrem/yr] would be implemented. However, the DOE dose limit is less than the applicable non‐DOE Occupational Safety and Health Administration worker dose limit of 50 mSv/yr [5,000 mrem/yr] (29 CFR 1910.1096). Clarify whether Holtec is relying solely on DOE as the user/payer of the used fuel, or if Holtec anticipates contracting with private entities. Additionally, if Holtec anticipates contracting with private entities, clarify whether statements concerning DOE and transportation should include the possibility for private transport. For example, ER Section 4.9.3.1 (Incident Free Impacts) describes DOE coordination with Federal agencies and support for emergency response training to States, Tribes, and local emergency responders along transportation routes and also refers to a DOE administrative worker annual dose limit of 5 mSv [500 mrem]. Clarify the roles and responsibilities applicable to ownership and transportation of SNF and clearly state what differences would exist based on ownership options. This additional information is needed in accordance with 10 CFR 51.45(b) and (b)(1), which requires that the ER include a description of the proposed action and discuss the impacts of the proposed action. Holtec Response It appears that the question refers to an earlier revision of the HI‐STORE environmental report. Section 3.9, starting in Rev 3 (dated November 2018), articulates that DOE or utility licensees are options in agreement with the licensed as referenced. Additionally, in that same revision, Paragraph 4.9.3.1 was updated to provide the requirements for transportation by a reactor licensee. The evaluations in the ER encompass fuel transportation and ownership by either DOE or a private entity. ER‐PA‐7: Verify the correct the latitude and longitude coordinates are provided in the ER. ER Section 2.2.1 (Holtec, 2017b), Description of the Proposed Site, states “The center of the proposed CIS Facility site (hereafter, “Site”) is at latitude 32.583 north and longitude 103.708 west…” This coordinate is not located within the proposed CISF boundaries. This additional information is needed in accordance with 10 CFR 51.45(b) and (b)(1), which requires that the ER include a description of the proposed action and discuss the impacts of the proposed action.


of 52

Holtec Response Section 2.2.1 has been updated to reflect the correct longitude and latitude. ER‐LU‐1: Provide information on the applicability of the State of New Mexico law, regulation, or order that prohibits oil and gas development within designated potash mining areas. ER Section 3.1.1 (Holtec, 2017b) states that past, present and future oil and gas wells exist or would occur on site while ER Section 3.1.2 (Holtec, 2017b) states that, “Further oil and gas development is not allowed by the New Mexico Oil Conservation Division due to the presence of potash ore on the Site.” Clarify which laws are applicable for oil and gas development within and surrounding the proposed site. This additional information is needed in accordance with 10 CFR 51.45(b) and (b)(1), which requires that the ER include a description of the affected environment and discuss the impacts of the proposed action. Holtec Response Sections 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 have been revised to clarify the discrepancies for oil and gas development with the following information taken into consideration. Figure 3.1.5 has been added to show Secretary’s Potash Area. Background: In 1939, the Secretary of the Interior established the Secretary’s Potash Area (SPA), under the authority of the Mineral Leasing Act. Initially, the SPA withdrew approximately 43,000 acres from oil and gas leasing and development for the express purpose of potash development. In 1951, the SPA was expanded, and the management policy was changed to one of concurrent development by the oil and gas and potash industries. Today, the Designated Potash Area (DPA) covers a total area of 497,630 acres (including the proposed Holtec site), and includes 350,617 acres of BLM managed surface acres, and operates under the 2012 Secretary’s Order, authorized on December 3, 2012. On December 3, 2012, the Secretary of the Interior announced a Secretarial Order to promote orderly and safe development of oil and gas and potash resources within the Designated Potash Area (DPA) in southeastern New Mexico. The 2012 Order provides procedures and guidelines for more orderly co‐development of oil and gas and potash deposits managed by the United States within the DPA through safe, concurrent operations. Industry uses drilling islands within a development area from which all new drilling of vertical, directional, or horizontal wells that newly penetrate the potash formations are allowed. The BLM establishes development areas within the DPA in consideration of appropriate oil and gas technology, such that wells can be drilled from a drilling island capable of effectively extracting oil and gas resources, while managing the impact on potash resources. (DOI/BLM 2012) Concurrent development of oil and gas and potash in the DPA has led to a long history of conflict between the two industries. The 2012 Secretarial Order addresses new technologies and other issues associated with oil, gas, and potash leasing and development within the DPA. The revisions are designed to promote the efficient development of the resources, while minimizing conflict between the industries, and ensuring safety of operations. (Rutley 2012)


of 52

The State of New Mexico recognizes the need for regulatory guidelines within the SPA and accordingly promulgated R‐111 Order governing drilling and plugging activities within the SPA. The original Order R‐111‐A has undergone numerous revisions in response to changing conditions and evolving relationships within the respective industries. The latest iteration, Order R‐111‐P was issued by the State of New Mexico’s Oil Conservation Commission, under the authority of the Energy, Minerals, and Natural Resources Department. The most recent order amendment was issued on April 21, 1988, to amend previous orders related to management of the Known Potash Leasing Area in order to clarify overlapping leasehold interests and “confusion recording the boundaries of the Known Potash Leasing Area.” BLM Instruction Memorandum No. NM‐2011‐003 was issued on October 1, 2010, to provide guidance on the processing of oil and gas applications for permits to drill within the SPA. These interim guidelines will guide BLM decisions on issuing permits until completion of a review of potash enclave standards and an economic evaluation of potash grades have been completed. (DOI/BLM 1986) The U.S. Department of the Interior recognized the significance of implementing and maintaining consistent regulatory controls within SPA and correspondingly adopted R‐111 guidelines in their management of oil and gas exploration/development within the SPA (FR, Vol. 51, No. 208, October 28, 1986). Observations/Conclusions: BLM (2012) issued Notice Oil, Gas, and Potash Leasing and Development Within Designated Potash Area of Eddy and Lea Counties New Mexico (77‐FR‐71814; pp. 71814‐71818; December 04, 2012). Section 6(e)(3) prohibits potash mining/extraction within ½ mile of gas wells or wells with bottom hole locations below the Bone Springs formation or 10,000 feet below ground surface. Although several drill islands are outside of the Holtec/ELEA designated boundary, this stipulation provides an effective buffer which mitigates any potential mining activity in the ore zone below the subject property and reduces the dimension of available ore to a quantity that is not economically viable. Additional impediments to accessing potash ore below the Holtec/ELEA property are:

1. The ore below the property is surrounded by leases on three of four sides owned by competing potash company Mosaic. The other bordering minerals are unleased and currently subjected to active oil and gas drilling. This consigns this ore to a “landlocked” scenario and renders it inaccessible without (costly) new vertical shafts or dissolution mining. Cores from the area indicate an insufficient amount of ore available to make either venture cost effective.

2. Mineral “Lessee” Intrepid Potash has signed a waiver, voluntarily agreeing to refrain from any efforts to access the subject ore (Jenarvis/Holtec International 2017)

3. Legal access to the ore below the subject property is adjudicated by the New Mexico State Land Office (State minerals). The New Mexico State Land office is currently in discussions with Holtec International regarding an agreement in principle to retire any potash, unencumbered by regulatory restrictions, in perpetuity.

Multi‐agency administrative institutional controls, provide a high degree of certainty that drilling and/or mining activities are closely monitored, regulated, and will not have a detrimental effect on the construction and operation of the Holtec facility. For reference, Secretary’s Potash Area is shown in the figure below. Note that the CIS Facility is located in Section 13, Township 20 South, Range 32 East.


of 52

References: 1. Rutley, J.S (2012); Process for APD, Drilling Island, and Development Area Review in the DPA;

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management; Retrieved from https://www.blm.gov/programs/energy‐and‐minerals/mining‐and‐minerals/nonenergy‐leasable‐materials/potash

2. State of New Mexico, Energy Minerals and Natural Resourced Division, Oil Conservation Commission (September 16, 2003); Case No. 9316; R‐111‐P

3. U.S. Department of the Interior, Secretary of the Interior (December 3, 2012), Order No. 3324; Oil, Gas, and Potash Leasing and Development Within the Designated Potash Area of Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico


of 52


of 52

ER‐LU‐2: Provide a publicly available copy of the agreement between Holtec and Intrepid Mining LLC (Intrepid) concerning the control of mineral rights and potash mining on the proposed project site. ER Section 3.1.2 (Holtec, 2017b) notes that Intrepid owns two potash mines within 10 km [6 mi] of the proposed site. The Intrepid North mine, located to the west, is no longer actively mining potash underground. The Intrepid East mine, located to the southwest, is still mining potash ore. ER Section 3.1.1 (Holtec, 2017b) states that Holtec has an agreement with Intrepid such that Holtec controls the mineral rights on the site and Intrepid will not conduct any potash mining on the site. A copy of this agreement should include the terms of the agreement, including the duration and geospatial coverage of the agreement. This information is needed in accordance with 10 CFR 51.45(c), which requires environmental reports to contain sufficient data to aid the NRC staff in its development of an independent analysis. Holtec Response Holtec has attached the agreement between Holtec and the Intrepid Mining LLC (intrepid) to state that Holtec controls the mineral rights for the site. ER‐LU‐3: Provide a description of recreational activities that may occur within and surrounding the project area, such as hunting and off‐road vehicle use, and any measures that will be implemented to restrict or mitigate the potential impacts of the proposed action on these activities over the life of the project, especially given the proposed site’s proximity to public use roads and areas. SAR Section 2.1.4 (Holtec, 2017c) states that land use in the area of the proposed project includes limited recreational activities. This additional information is needed in accordance with 10 CFR 51.45(b) and (b)(1), which requires that the ER include a description of the affected environment and discuss the impacts of the proposed action. Holtec Response Section 3.1.2 of the ER was revised to include a discussion of the recreational activities in the vicinity of the site. In general, the site is currently private property and will remain private property once purchased by Holtec. The site is designated “Off‐Limits” and trespassing is prohibited. ER‐LU‐4: Provide a figure that identifies the extent of existing and proposed pipelines that cross the proposed project area. The figure should not only show the route of the pipelines within the proposed project area [as depicted in ER Figure 3.1.2 (Holtec, 2017b) and SAR Figure 2.1.21 (Holtec, 2017c)] but also the route of the pipelines outside the proposed project area to a distance of at least 10 km [6 mi]. SAR Section 2.2.2 (Holtec, 2017c) presents information on pipelines that cross the proposed project area, including the owner/operator. ER Figure 3.1.2 (Holtec, 2017b) and SAR Figure 2.1.2 (Holtec, 2017c) show the route of the pipelines within the proposed project area but the figures do not show the owner/operator of the pipelines or the route of the pipelines outside the proposed project area.


of 52

This additional information is needed in accordance with 10 CFR 51.45(b), (b)(1), and (c), which requires that the ER include a description of the affected environment, discuss the impacts of the proposed action, and contain sufficient data to aid the NRC in its development of an independent analysis. Holtec Response Figure 3.1.4 was added to Chapter 3 illustrating the pipelines within 10km of the proposed CIS Facility. ER‐LU‐5: Provide a description of any specific measures that will be implemented (e.g., that Holtec commits to implement) to mitigate impacts of surface disturbance and any other anticipated impacts resulting from construction, operation, and decommissioning of all components of the proposed CISF described in ER Section 2.2.2 (Holtec, 2017b). ER Section 6.1 (Holtec, 2017b) presents a general description of proposed mitigation measures to minimize land use impacts from construction, operation, and decommissioning of the proposed CISF. ER Section 6.0 states that mitigation measures presented in ER Section 6.1 may not necessarily be implemented for the proposed CISF (Holtec, 2017b). Clarification of mitigation measure commitments from Holtec should be clearly identified in the ER. This additional information is needed in accordance with 10 CFR 51.45(b) and (c), which requires that the ER discuss the environmental impacts of the proposed action and alternatives available for reducing and avoiding adverse environmental impacts. Holtec Response Chapter 6 was revised to discuss actionable mitigating measures for each subsection, that include a clarification on best management practices. Additionally, all listed mitigating measures no longer distinguish between required and voluntary; all actions are required. ER‐LU‐6: Provide the memorandum of agreement (MOA) between Holtec and Eddy Lea Energy Alliance, LLC (ELEA) covering the design, licensing, construction, operation, decommissioning, and purchase terms of the site and the approval by the New Mexico Board of Finance for the sale of the site to Holtec. The MOA will need to be made publicly available in order for NRC to reference the document in the EIS. If the full MOA cannot be made publicly available, provide a redacted or similar version that can be made publicly available and that contains the needed information. SAR Section 2.1.2 (Holtec, 2017c) notes and provides references to (i) a MOA signed in April 2016 by ELEA and Holtec covering the design, licensing, construction, operation, and decommissioning of the site and the terms by which Holtec could purchase the site and (ii) an action by the New Mexico Board of Finance approving the sale of the site to Holtec. This additional information is needed in accordance with 10 CFR 51.45(c), which requires that the ER contain sufficient data to aid the NRC in its development of an independent analysis. Holtec Response Holtec has attached the memorandum of agreement (MOA) between Holtec and Eddy Lea County

Alliance, LLC (ELEA) covering the design, licensing, construction, operation, decommissioning, and

purchase items of the site and the approval by the New Mexico Board of Finance for the sale of the site

to Holtec.


of 52

ER‐TR‐4: Clarify the analysis of off‐site transportation incident‐free dose estimates for workers (e.g., vehicle crew members and escorts, inspectors, rail yard workers). ER Section 4.9.3.1 (Holtec, 2017b) addresses radiological impacts to workers during SNF transportation by referencing a statement about an administrative dose limit in a prior DOE impact analysis of SNF transportation from U.S. power plants to a proposed repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada (DOE, 2008). The ER states that the DOE analysis determined annual doses to workers would be maintained below a DOE administrative limit of 5 mSv [500 mrem]. The ER then concludes the transportation impacts of the proposed Holtec CISF would not exceed this estimate. Clarify how the DOE administrative limit would limit doses to all workers considering that some workers (inspectors, rail yard employees) would not be employed by DOE. Additionally, if applicable depending on the response to RAI‐ER‐PA‐6, clarify the extent to which worker dose estimates would be affected if entities other than DOE were responsible for transporting the SNF to the CISF. This information is needed in accordance with 10 CFR 51.45(c), which requires analyses in environmental reports to be quantitative to the fullest extent practicable and contain sufficient data to aid the NRC in its development of an independent analysis. Holtec Response The ER report uses the DOE analysis to determine the doses incurred by workers involved in the transportation of canisters to the CISF. The DOE evaluation determined that doses are less than 500 mrem/year. Because the transportation of the canisters to the HI‐STORE facility occurs under similar assumptions as the DOE study, it can also be concluded that doses to transportation workers are less than 500 mrem/year. This number is a DOE administrative limit, but for either the DOE or private entity option, the dose to workers would be under that same estimate, as the number of workers and transportation impacts are expected to be similar. Note that as discussed in the response to RAI‐ER‐PA‐6, Paragraph 4.9.3.1 was updated in Revision 3 of the ER to clearly identify private entity shipment requirements. ER‐TR‐5: Provide rail traffic information for the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Carlsbad Subdivision line. ER Section 3.9.2 (Holtec, 2017b) provides rail traffic information for the Texas New Mexico Railroad line. However, the proposed spur would connect with the BNSF Carlsbad Subdivision line. The same information should be provided for the BNSF Carlsbad Subdivision line. This information is necessary to evaluate impacts on transportation resources and is needed in accordance with 10 CFR 51.45(b), which requires that the ER include a description of the affected environment. Holtec Response Section 3.9.2 was revised to provide the amount of rail traffic on the BNSF rail spur servicing the Intrepid North facility. ER‐TR‐6: Describe the impact on local traffic patterns and volume if heavy haul trucks were used to transport SNF from a nearby rail line to the CISF.


of 52

ER Section 8.19 (Holtec, 2017b) states that the proposed action would not change traffic patterns or traffic on existing roads if a heavy haul truck were used. Clarify the impacts that would be anticipated from the heavy haul truck option for local SNF transportation, considering whether existing roads or newly constructed roads would be used and how traffic would be managed when shipments are being made. If existing public roads would be used, would traffic management actions (e.g., road closures) be implemented on public roads when shipments are occurring to address the potential impacts of slow moving large trucks on traffic safety? Further, if existing roads are used, would improvements be made or additional impacts (e.g., increased wear and tear, maintenance and rehabilitation costs) be anticipated due to the increased weight of the heavy haul trucks on these roads? This information is needed in accordance with 10 CFR 51.45(b), which requires that the ER include a description of the proposed action and assessment of impacts. Holtec Response Holtec is no longer pursuing the use of heavy haul trucks for the transport of spent nuclear fuel from the main rail line to the CISF. Any discussion relative to this option has been removed from the report. The proposed action only considers the use of a rail spur. Section 8.1.9 has been updated to clarify that SNF transportation is via railway systems. ER‐TR‐7: Provide additional information about the SNF transportation routing analysis. ER page 4‐32 (Holtec, 2017b) states, “WebTRAGIS was used to determine the route length and population density” with no attribution or reference. Information regarding assumptions in the analysis should be provided including the study author, version of the code, and population data. This information is needed in accordance with 10 CFR 51.45(c), which requires analyses in environmental reports to be quantitative to the fullest extent practicable and contain sufficient data to aid the NRC in its development of an independent analysis. Holtec Response Section 4.9.3.1 has been revised to clarify the source of the WebTRAGIS analysis. Additional discussion is provided below. The incident‐free radiological transportation analysis in the Environmental Report (HI‐2167521) tiers from the analysis prepared for the proposed WCS CISF (WCS 2016). That analysis utilized RADTRAN, version 6.02, to calculate the radiological impacts of transporting radiological materials (NRC 2014a). Detailed supporting documentation for the WCS 2016 transportation analysis is contained in WCS 2016 Attachment 4‐1. The pertinent information from Attachment 4‐1 is further discussed, as appropriate, as follows. The routing code WebTRAGIS (used in the WCS 2016 analysis which is the basis for the Holtec Environmental Report analysis, and in most RADTRAN analyses) provides routing data in two different forms: (1) combined rural, combined suburban, and combined urban route segments (links) and population densities for each state transited, and (2) a much more precise output that provides rural, suburban, and urban segments for node‐to‐node distances, from 1‐15 km long. The second method was


of 52

used in the WCS analysis (and therefore is the basis for the Holtec analysis) because it identifies the receptor population much more precisely than the state‐to‐state routing data. However, this output consists of several hundred links and can have more than a thousand links and the RADTRAN graphical user interface (RadCat) cannot accommodate more than 60 links in a single analysis. In order to take advantage of the increased precision, the input to RADTRAN for the WCS analysis used as Holtec’s basis used a unit risk factor (URF) approach, structured in the same way as the input to NUREG 2125 (NRC 2014a), as follows: 1. A unit risk factor (URF) radiation population dose was calculated by the RADTRAN code. The URF population dose is the dose to a population density of one person per square kilometer (km2) on a rural, a suburban, and an urban link, each one kilometer long. This unit population density was also used to calculate doses at representative stops (additional information related to the URF for the Holtec analysis is found in the response to RAI ER‐TR‐8). 2. Population dose is then calculated for each link and each stop using a spreadsheet that allows multiplication of the unit risks by link length and link (or stop) population. The WCS and Holtec analyses evaluated SNF transportation for both shutdown reactor sites as well as operating reactor sites. Attachment 4‐1 of (WCS 2016) lists the routing parameters for the shutdown reactor sites and also provides summarized results for the shutdown sites. For operating reactor sites, the WCS analysis that forms the basis for the Holtec calculation assumed SNF would be along three representative routes: (1) from the east coast to the CISF (assumed to be from Maine Yankee Nuclear Power Plant to the CISF); (2) from the west coast to the CISF (assumed to be from the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station [SONGS] to the CISF; and (3) from the CISF to the assumed repository at Yucca Mountain in Nye County, Nevada. Rural, suburban, and urban route segments were analyzed separately, and the resulting collective doses were added. The routing code WebTRAGIS, developed by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) was used to analyze the routes. The section of the WebTRAGIS output used in this study was RouteDensityByState, which provides the length and resident population density of each route segment. (Note: The WCS CISF transportation analysis was based on the receipt of 40,000 MTUs of SNF in approximately 4,000 canisters from decommissioned shutdown sites and operating reactor sites, which is 2.5 times less than the Holtec proposal to receive 100,000 MTUs of SNF in approximately 10,000 canisters. Consequently, the Holtec analysis accounts for that greater amount of SNF transportation for the Holtec CISF). Specific information regarding transportation distances and population estimates used in the WCS transportation analysis are provided in the tables in the Attachment 4‐1 of (WCS 2016). The information is provided for transportation from shutdown reactor sites; however, the information provided also covers the representative routes used for the transportation analysis of 40,000 MTUs of SNF (for the WCS CISF) and the 100,000 MTUs of SNF (for the Holtec CISF). Once again, it must be noted that the Holtec transportation analysis tiered from the WCS analysis, and thus, the population segments and population densities would be the same. Ruth Weiner of Sandia National Laboratory is listed as the study author for the WCS Transportation Analysis. References: NRC 2014a NRC. Spent Fuel Transportation Risk Assessment (NUREG‐2125). January 2014. WCS 2016 Waste Control Specialists (WCS). “WCS Consolidated Interim Spent Fuel Storage Facility

Environmental Report.” May 2016.


of 52

ER‐TR‐8: Provide additional information to support the ER assertion that incident‐free transportation risk calculations are bounding. ER page 4‐32 (Holtec, 2017b) states, “Using the maximum dose rate (10 mrem/hr at a distance of 6.5 feet from the cask) assures that the doses calculated by RADTRAN bound those of the proposed SNF shipments to and from the CIS Facility.” Considering the RADTRAN technical manual (Weiner et al., 2014) describes numerous input parameters and data values, explain how setting this one parameter in RADTRAN to a bounding value “assures” the calculation results are bounding or clarify the statement to more accurately convey how this and other parameter selections affect the degree of conservatism incorporated into the analysis. The response should describe any other important parameters that are set to bounding values as well as parameters that affect the dose results that are not bounding. This information is needed in accordance with 10 CFR 51.45(c), which requires analyses in environmental reports to be quantitative to the fullest extent practicable and contain sufficient data to aid the NRC in its development of an independent analysis. Holtec Response Section 4.9.3.1 has been revised to clarify the conservatisms associated with the analysis parameters. Additional information on the conservatism of each parameter is provided below. The RADTRAN model estimates the total dose to the population along the transportation route for normal (non‐accident) operations. In order to estimate the total transportation dose, the following parameters are needed: (1) dose rate from the material being shipped; (2) transportation route; (3) population densities along the route; and (4) number of shipments of material. With respect to parameter #1 (e.g., dose rate from the material being shipped), the Holtec transportation analysis was based on a conservative (maximum) dose rate of 10 mrem/hour at a distance of 6.5 feet from the cask (this is the maximum DOT regulatory dose rate for SNF shipment). Using this conservative dose rate assumption as an input, the RADTRAN code generates what is known as the “unit risk factor (URF)” radiation population dose. The URF radiation population dose is the dose to a population density of one person per square kilometer on a rural, a suburban, and an urban link, each one kilometer long. For the Holtec analysis, the URF radiation population dose for one shipment of SNF along the representative transportation routes was estimated at 1.79 x 10‐3 mrem. With respect to parameter #2 (e.g., transportation route), the Holtec analysis assumed SNF would be along three representative routes: (1) from the east coast to the CISF (assumed to be from Maine Yankee Nuclear Power Plant to the CISF); (2) from the west coast to the CISF (assumed to be from the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station [SONGS] to the CISF; and (3) from the CISF to the assumed repository at Yucca Mountain in Nye County, Nevada. Overall, these representative routes provided a conservative estimate of the distance SNF would be transported, especially considering that most SNF to be transported would originate in the east and central United States at distances much less than that of the representative eastern route. To be meaningful and provide impactful information, the URF radiation population dose must be applied across transportation routes and population densities along those routes. As explained in the response to RAI ER‐TR‐7, the routing code WebTRAGIS was used to provide routing data along the representative routes using the most precise rural, suburban, and urban segments. Consequently, for parameter #3


of 52

(e.g., population densities along the route), the Holtec analysis used the most precise information available. The RADTRAN code integrates the URF radiation population dose with the population densities along the representative routes to determine the total population dose for a shipment of SNF along that specific route. Then, using the total number of shipments, the total transportation dose can be calculated. For parameter #4 (e.g., number of shipments of material), the Holtec analysis was based on an estimate of the number of shipments that would be required. In summary, Holtec used the term “bounding” in the transportation analysis to reflect the use of: (1) a conservative (maximum) dose rate from the SNF, and (2) conservative distances assumed for SNF transportation, and used accurate values for the number of canisters. ER‐TR‐9: Provide technical bases for the applicability of other cited transportation risk analyses. ER Sections 4.9.3 and 4.9.4 (Holtec, 2017b) describe other past transportation analyses and the conclusions of the studies. Provide detail on the methods, assumptions, and similarities of the cited analyses to explain their applicability to the proposed action. This information is needed in accordance with 10 CFR 51.45(c), which requires analyses in environmental reports to be quantitative to the fullest extent practicable and contain sufficient data to aid the NRC in its development of an independent analysis. Holtec Response ER Section 4.9.3 cites the following analyses involving SNF transportation: WCS 2016, NUREG‐1714, and DOE‐2008. A summary of each document regarding their applicability is provided below.

1. WCS 2016: see response RAI ER‐TR‐7 and RAI ER‐TR‐8, which details the WCS 2016 analysis and explains its applicability to the Holtec analysis.

2. NUREG‐1714: The proposed action involves the construction and operation of the proposed Private Fuel Storage Facility (PFSF) at a site located in the northwest corner of the Reservation and a new rail line connecting the existing Union Pacific railroad to the site. The proposed PFSF would be designed to store a lifetime capacity of up to 40,000 MTUs of SNF. For 200 shipments of SNF annually to the PSF, NRC determined that the total dose associated with transportation would be 23 person‐rem per year (NRC 2001, Table 5.5). The NRC concluded that, “The results… show that the estimated LCFs associated with the transport of SNF would be small.” This result is consistent with Holtec’s results.

3. DOE 2008: The DOE evaluated the potential impacts of transporting up to 70,000 MTUs of SNF to the Yucca Mountain repository from nuclear power plants across the U.S. The DOE determined that transportation impacts would result in a total dose of 1,100‐1,200 person‐rem to the population along the transportation routes (DOE 2008, Table 6‐4). Those results correlate well with the results presented Table 4.9.1 of the Holtec Environmental Report (HI‐2167521), when the results in that table (which represent the impacts of transporting 5,000 MTUs) are integrated to account for a similar overall quantity of SNF transport.


of 52

ER Section 4.9.4 cites the following analyses involving SNF transportation: NUREG‐2125, NUREG‐2157, NUREG/CR‐6657, NUREG‐0170, NRC 2001, and DOE‐2008. A summary of each document regarding their applicability is provided below.

4. NUREG‐2125: The purpose of this study was to analyze the radiological risks of transporting SNF in routine transportation and transportation accidents, using the latest available data and modeling techniques. The study concluded the following: o The average radiation dose to members of the public from routine transportation of

radioactive materials is a fraction of the existing background radiation dose. o The radiological risk from accidents in transporting radioactive materials is very small

compared to the nonradiological risk from accidents involving large trucks or freight trains (NRC 2014a).

These conclusions are consistent with the results in the Holtec Environmental Report (HI‐2167521).

5. NUREG‐2157: This Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel (GEIS) addressed the environmental impacts of continuing to store SNF at a reactor site or at an away‐from‐reactor storage facility. In the GEIS, NRC concluded that, “Radiological impacts to the public and workers from spent fuel shipments from a reactor have previously been evaluated by the NRC… and were found to be small” (NRC 2014b). This conclusion is consistent with Holtec’s results.

6. NUREG/CR‐6672: This report reexamined the risks associated with the transport of spent nuclear fuel by truck and rail and compared the results to those published in NUREG‐0170 and the Modal Study. The reexamination considered transport by truck and rail in four generic Type B spent fuel casks. The report concluded that, “comparisons demonstrate that both of these studies made a number of very conservative assumptions about spent fuel and cask response to accident conditions, which caused their estimates of accident source terms, accident frequencies, and accident consequences to also be very conservative. The results of this study and the previous studies demonstrate that the risks associated with the shipment of spent fuel by truck or rail are very small” (NRC 2000). This conclusion is consistent with Holtec’s results.

7. NUREG‐0170: Prepared in 1977, this Final Environmental Statement was prepared in connection with NRC re‐evaluation of its regulations governing transportation of radioactive materials in order to provide sufficient analysis for determining the effectiveness of the present rules and of possible alternatives to these rules. The NRC staff determined that, “the environmental impacts of normal transportation of radioactive materials and the risks attendant to accidents involving radioactive material shipments are sufficiently small to allow continued shipments by all modes” (NRC 1977). This conclusion is consistent with Holtec’s results.

8. DOE 2008 (see number #3 above). References: DOE 2008 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

for a Geologic Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High‐Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada (DOE/EIS‐0250F‐S‐1). June 2008.


of 52

NRC 1977 Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Final Environmental Statement on the Transportation of Radioactive Material by Air and Other Modes (NUREG‐0170). December 1977.

NRC 2000 NRC. Reexamination of Spent Fuel Shipment Risk Estimates. (NUREG/CR‐6672). March 2000.

NRC 2001 NRC. Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Construction and Operation of an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation on the Reservation of the Skull Valley Band of the Goshute Indians and Related Transportation Facility in Tooele County, Utah (NUREG‐1714). December 2001.

NRC 2014a NRC. Spent Fuel Transportation Risk Assessment (NUREG‐2125). January 2014. NRC 2014b NRC. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear

Fuel (NUREG 2157). September 2014. WCS 2016 Waste Control Specialists (WCS). “WCS Consolidated Interim Spent Fuel Storage Facility

Environmental Report.” May 2016. ER‐GS‐1: Provide additional information on the regional physiographic features surrounding the proposed CISF site, including a figure showing the physiographic features and a description of the geologic and hydrologic processes responsible for formation of the features. Physiographic features in the region of the proposed CISF include the Querecho Plains, Lower Pecos Valley, Llano Estacado, Mescalero Ridge, Laguna Valley, Grama Ridge, Nash Draw, Clayton Basin, and San Simon Swale (ELEA, 2007). Clarify the description of these features, some of which are mentioned in the ER and SAR [e.g., see ER Section 3.5.1 (Holtec, 2017b) and SAR Section 2.4.1 (Holtec, 2017c)]. This additional information is needed in accordance with 10 CFR 51.45(b) and (c), which requires that the ER include a description of the affected environment and contain sufficient data to aid the NRC in its development of an independent analysis. Holtec Response: Section 3.3.1.3 has been added and includes additional information on the regional physiographic features surrounding the proposed CISF site. Figures 3.3.9 through 3.3.12 have also been added to provide a visual representation of the additional information. ER‐GS‐2: Provide information to evaluate the potential for environmental impacts caused by induced seismicity from deep well injection of wastewater at or near the proposed CISF. This information should include the number and location of injection wells within a 10 km [6 mi] radius of the proposed project area. For each identified injection well, provide information on the geologic formation that wastewaters are being injected into, the depth and thickness of the targeted geologic formation, and injected wastewater volumes. ER Section 3.3.2.1 (Holtec, 2017b) states that recent seismicity southeast and west of the proposed project area is suspected to be induced by injection of waste water from natural gas production into deep wells or wells. The requested information would be used to assess the potential for induced seismicity to impact the proposed CISF.


of 52

This additional information is needed in accordance with 10 CFR 51.45(b) and (c), which requires that the ER include a description of the affected environment and contain sufficient data to aid the NRC in its development of an independent analysis. Holtec Response: Section 3.3.2.1 of the Environmental Report (HI‐2167521) states that induced seismicity from deep well waste water injection may account for earthquakes between 2.5 ‐ 4.0 magnitude (based on WIPP monitoring network). Section 3.3.2.2 provides the probability of a magnitude 5.0 earthquake (greater than induced seismicity) within 30 miles of the site in next 50 years to be ~2%. Section 3.3.2.3 states that according to USGS, the PGA of an earthquake with 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years is ~0.06g (2,500‐year return). According to Table 4.3.3 of the HI‐STORE SAR, PGA of the CISF Design Basis Earthquake (10,000‐year return) is 0.15g and the Operating Basis Earthquake (1,000 year return) is 0.10g. Additionally, Per Table 4.3.3 of the HI‐STORE SAR, the Design Basis Earthquake for the HI‐STORE UMAX ISFSI structure has a horizontal PGA of 1.0g, which is more than six times greater than ground motion at the proposed site. Therefore, induced seismicity of from deep well waste water injection is bounded by both DBE and OBE for the facility and will not impact the CISF. ER‐GS‐3: Provide information on the potential impacts associated with the disposition (stockpiling, reuse, or disposal) of excavated soils from construction of the proposed CISF and associated infrastructure, including the rail spur or intermodal facility (see also RAI PA‐4). If soils will be stockpiled, provide information on the locations and estimated volume of soil stockpiles, and mitigation measures (including any measures that may be required by New Mexico Environment Department regulations or BLM) that will be implemented to avoid and reduce soil losses due to stormwater runoff and wind erosion. If soils will be disposed, provide information on the estimated volume of soil to be disposed, the location of potential disposal facilities, and how soil will be transported to the disposal facilities. Provide information assessing the potential impact of the disposition (stockpiling, reuse, or disposal) of excavated soils from construction of the proposed CISF and infrastructure described in ER Section 2.2.2 (Holtec, 2017b), including for the rail spur or intermodal facility. This additional information is needed in accordance with 10 CFR 51.45(b) and (c), which requires that the ER include a description of the affected environment, discuss the impacts of the proposed action, and contain sufficient data to aid the NRC in its development of an independent analysis. Holtec Response Section 2.2.2.8 has been revised to include discussion on the quantities of excavated materials for the UMAX and all associated infrastructure. Concurrently, additional information was added on how the excavated materials will be handled (re‐use or trucked off‐site). It should be noted that stockpiling is also discussed in Chapter 4, while erosion mitigation measures are discussed in Chapter 6. ER‐GS‐4: Provide information on the mitigation measures for spill prevention and storm water management that will be implemented during operation to protect soils from radiological and nonradiological contamination.


of 52

ER Section 4.3.3 (Holtec, 2017b) states that mitigation measures for spill prevention and storm water management would be applied during operation, as described in Chapter 6. Identify and describe any operational mitigation measures to which the applicant is committing. This additional information is needed in accordance with 10 CFR 51.45(b) and (c), which requires that the ER discuss the environmental impacts of the proposed action and alternatives available for reducing and avoiding adverse environmental impacts. Holtec Response Section 6.3 has been updated to include the development of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Additionally, the development of a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures Plan was added as a mitigating measure. ER‐GS‐5: Provide additional information on the best management practices, acceptable methods, and acceptable means that will be implemented to minimize potential impacts on geology and soils during construction, operation, and decommissioning of the CISF and associated infrastructure (including construction of the rail spur or intermodal facility) described in ER Section 2.2.2 (Holtec, 2017b). ER Section 6.3 (Holtec, 2017b) states that best management practices would be used to mitigate erosion impacts due to site clearing and grading, acceptable methods would be used to stabilize disturbed soils during construction, and acceptable means would be used to stabilize cleared areas not covered by structures or pavement. Describe the specific measures (e.g., acceptable methods and acceptable means) that will be implemented. This additional information is needed in accordance with 10 CFR 51.45(b) and (c), which requires that the ER discuss the environmental impacts of the proposed action and alternatives available for reducing and avoiding adverse environmental impacts. Holtec Response Chapter 6 was revised to discuss actionable mitigating measures for each subsection that include a clarification on best management practices. Additionally, all listed mitigating measures no longer distinguish between required and voluntary; all actions are required. ER‐WR‐1: Provide information about the seasonality of water in Laguna Gatuna and Laguna Plata, water depth that is typical when the lagunas contain water, and monthly, quarterly or other seasonal information on how much water the lagunas contain over the course of a year. ER Section 3.5.1 (Holtec, 2017b) identifies Laguna Gatuna and Laguna Plata as ephemeral playas and states that surface runoff from the proposed CISF site flows into Laguna Gatuna to the east and Laguna Plata to the northwest. Provide information regarding when and how much water the playas may intermittently contain. This additional information is needed in accordance with 10 CFR 51.45(b) and (b)(1), which requires that the ER include a description of the affected environment and discuss the impacts of the proposed action.


of 52

Holtec Response Section 3.5.1.1 has been added to specifically discuss the details of the Lagunas. The presence of measurable water in either playa is predominantly contingent on precipitation events, therefore calculations to predict water retention over the course of a calendar year would be speculative (based on average annual precipitation rates of 13.1” annually in Carlsbad and 15.7“ in Hobbs). The wettest months or “monsoon months” are historically July and August. Precipitation events usually occur in the form of erratic, unpredictable, and sometimes violent thunderstorms which can leave several inches of rainfall in a relatively short period of time. Water quality in both playas and their respective intermittent saline springs, is considered hypersaline (Davis & Hopkins, 1992). ER‐WR‐2: To assist the NRC in describing the affected environment, provide additional information on the site‐specific flooding analysis presented in SAR Section 2.4.2 (Holtec, 2017c). The additional information should include input data, output results, and figures illustrating the maximum extent of flooding across the analyzed area such that NRC could replicate or otherwise independently verify the analysis. SAR Section 2.4.2 (Holtec, 2017c) provides a general description of a site‐specific flooding analysis of the proposed CISF site for a maximum precipitation event conducted with ESRI ArcGIS software with 3D and Spatial Analyst extensions and publicly available GIS data. Provide detailed data to support the NRC staff’s validation and verification of the results of the analysis. This additional information is needed in accordance with 10 CFR 51.45(b)(1), which requires that the ER contain sufficient data to aid the NRC in its development of an independent analysis. Holtec Response SAR Section 2.4.2 was revised to clarify the sources of each piece of input data. As discussed in this section:

The Area of Interest (AOI) is defined as the boundary of the site. All other GIS data for the analysis were identified, derived, and/or acquired from publicly available data sources. This data included a Digital Elevation Model (DEM) of the AOI [2.4.9], one foot contours of the area (derived from the DEM), hydrologic unit boundary for the 12‐digit sub‐watersheds (HUC‐12) [2.4.10], and the NRCS soils [2.4.11] present in the AOI. Also derived from the DEM was a Triangular Interpolated Network (TIN) layer used in the polygon volume calculations. All data were projected into the NAD83, UTM Zone 13N coordinate system.

Additionally, Figure 2.4.11 was added to the SAR to show the Laguna Watersheds developed from the input data as well as the flooded area for 7.5” Rain Event. Sources: 2.4.9 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), National Geospatial Program. 3D Elevation Program Digital

Elevation Model Resolution 1/3 arc second (10 meters). https://nationalmap.gov 2.4.10 New Mexico Resource Geographic Information System. Hydrologic Unit Boundary “New Mexico

HUC‐12 Boundaries”, http://rgis.unm.edu/


of 52

2.4.11 U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Resources Conservation Service. NRCS Web Survey. https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx

ER‐WR‐3: Provide additional information on consumptive water use for the proposed CISF including activities that will consume water (e.g., dust suppression or use in concrete batch plant) and the estimated amount of water consumed by these activities. In addition, provide information on the capacity of the City of Hobbs Water Department to meet water demands for the proposed CISF and whether any local or State permits or authorizations will be required to acquire water from the City of Hobbs Water Department (or other sources), and the status of those permits. ER Section 4.10.1 (Holtec, 2017b) states that peak potable water requirements for the CISF would be 76 L/min [20 gal/min] during construction, operation, and decommissioning and that potable water would be provided by the City of Hobbs Water Department from municipal wells withdrawing water from the Ogallala Aquifer. Provide information on the amount of water that will be consumed by specific activities during construction, operation, and decommissioning. In addition, provide information on the capacity of the City of Hobbs Water Department to meet water demands for the proposed CISF or whether any permits or authorizations would be required to acquire water from the City of Hobbs. This additional information is needed in accordance with 10 CFR 51.45(b) and (c), which requires that the ER discuss the impacts of the proposed action and contain sufficient data to aid the NRC in its development of an independent analysis. Holtec Response: Section 4.10.1 and 4.10.2 were revised to clarify and provide additional details pertaining to the consumptive water use for the CISF. Section 4.10.1 was also revised to note that water would be supplied by the City of Carlsbad via their Double Eagle Water system. A letter from the City of Carlsbad City Administrator stating the city's ability to meet and supply the CISF water demand has been attached to the Environmental Report as Appendix I. ER‐WR‐4: Provide additional information about the existing potable water supply pipe at the proposed CISF site including a figure showing its location in relation to full build‐out of the proposed CISF, origin and terminus, source of water, material construction, size (e.g., width or diameter), and delivery capacity (e.g., maximum flowrate). In addition, provide information on any measures that will be implemented to mitigate impacts of the water supply pipe on construction, operation, and decommissioning activities. ER Section 4.10.1 (Holtec, 2017b) states that an existing potable water supply pipe is already in place at the site and that no notable construction would be required to provide water to the CISF. Discuss potential impacts associated with use of the water supply pipe. This additional information is needed in accordance with 10 CFR 51.45(b), (b)(1), and (c), which requires that the ER include a description of the affected environment, discuss the impacts of the proposed action, and contain sufficient data to aid the NRC in its development of an independent analysis.


of 52

Holtec Response: Section 4.10.1 has been revised to clarify that the existing potable water pipeline which bisects the site is owned by Intrepid Mining LLC and services their Intrepid East Facility. Intrepid is aware of the need to relocate this pipeline and Holtec will coordinate with Intrepid to reroute this pipeline around the Site prior to the beginning of construction. The pipeline is a surface pipeline and would require no significant construction to reroute. ER‐WR‐5: Provide information on baseline groundwater sampling for the proposed CISF. Specifically, provide information on whether baseline groundwater sampling would be conducted prior to construction and, if so, provide details of the baseline groundwater sampling program including sampling locations, sampling intervals, and constituents and parameters to be analyzed. ER Section 4.5.5 (Holtec, 2017b) states that “impacts to groundwater during decommissioning would be minimal. Sampling would also be integral to the decommissioning process to demonstrate that any residual impacts, as compared to baseline sampling results, meet NRC and EPA guidelines.” Provide information regarding the baseline groundwater sampling program and any results. This additional information is needed in accordance with 10 CFR 51.45(b) and (c), which requires that the ER include a description of the affected environment, discuss the impacts of the proposed action, and contain sufficient data to aid the NRC in its development of an independent analysis. Holtec Response: Section 4.5.1 has been revised to note that a baseline groundwater monitoring, sampling, and testing program will be implemented prior to the start of construction. Additionally, Appendix J has been added to provide details of the program including sampling locations, intervals, and the constituents and parameters that would be analyzed. ER‐WR‐6: Provide a description of any specific environmental measures that will be implemented to mitigate impacts to groundwater and surface water during construction, operation, and decommissioning of the proposed CISF. ER Section 6.5 (Holtec, 2017b) presents a list of measures that could be implemented to mitigate groundwater and surface water impacts from construction, operation, and decommissioning of the proposed CISF. Proposed commitments to the environmental measures will be used in the impacts analysis. This additional information is needed in accordance with 10 CFR 51.45(b) and (c), which requires that the ER discuss the environmental impacts of the proposed action and alternatives available for reducing and avoiding adverse environmental impacts. Holtec Response: Chapter 6 was revised to discuss actionable mitigating measures for each subsection that include a clarification on best management practices. Additionally, all listed mitigating measures no longer distinguish between required and voluntary; all actions are required.


of 52

ER‐WR‐7: Provide additional descriptions of any planned or expected stormwater management facilities or activities. ER Section 1.4.2.1 (Holtec, 2017b) and other sections of the ER refer to stormwater permits that would be needed, including those applicable to point source discharge of stormwater. ER Section 4.5.3 (Holtec, 2017b), describes how stormwater runoff would flow into the nearby drainages of Laguna Plata and Laguna Gatuna. Describe any additional stormwater management facilities or activities that are proposed or expected. This additional information is needed in accordance with 10 CFR 51.45(b) and (b)(1), which requires that the ER include a description of the affected environment and discuss the impacts of the proposed action. Holtec Response: The HI‐STORE site will rely on surface flow and or drainage culverts for rain water runoff, which as stated will drain to the lagunas, with the majority flowing to Laguna Plata. At this time, there is no expected need for an additional storm water management facility. ER‐ECO‐1: Provide the acreages of vegetated land by type, bare land, existing disturbed areas such as roads, and open water habitat (e.g., Laguna Gatuna) within the project boundary of the CISF. Clearly identify, using similar categories, the acreages that will be revegetated or reclaimed after decommissioning. This information could be provided in a table. ER Appendix B (Holtec, 2017b) notes the number of acres that would be disturbed and states that the site is composed of mesquite upland scrubland habitat. In addition to identifying the overall habitat type, information is needed regarding (i) the specific vegetative communities that are present at the site, (ii) how many acres of each vegetative community would be disturbed, (iii) dominant species within each vegetative community, and (iv) the amount of total and relative vegetative cover. This information is needed to describe the affected environment and assess the potential environmental impacts that construction, operation, and decommissioning of the CISF will have on ecological resources. This information is needed in accordance with 10 CFR 51.45(b)(1) and (2), which require that the ER include a description of the proposed action and discuss the impacts of the proposed action. Holtec Response: Appendix H has been added to provide a detailed assessment of the specific ecological sites and vegetative communities present at the Site as well as how much of each will be disturbed. Additionally, sections 3.4.2.1, 4.4.1, and 4.4.7 have been revised to reference this detailed assessment. ER‐ECO‐2: Provide any updated information on baseline ecological surveys for land within the proposed CISF project boundary. Specifically, confirm whether additional wildlife and vegetation surveys will be conducted prior to construction. If so, provide details of the types of surveys that would be conducted and an estimated time of completion. In addition, clarify BLM regulations and requirements for wildlife and vegetation surveys on BLM‐owned land (proposed rail spur location) as well as wildlife and vegetation surveys required by the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish and the New Mexico Environment Department.


of 52

ER Section 3.4 states that an ecological survey was conducted in March 2007 on approximately 407 ha [1,005 ac] of the 421 ha [1,040 ac] parcel. A one‐day confirmatory ecological survey was conducted in October 2016 of the 133.5 ha [330 ac] area that is proposed to be disturbed over the life of the proposed CISF project including construction of the access road and rail spur. This additional information is needed in accordance with 10 CFR 51.45(b) and (c), which requires that the ER include a description of the affected environment, discuss the impacts of the proposed action, and contain sufficient data to aid the NRC in its development of an independent analysis. Holtec Response: Section 3.4 provides the baseline characterization of the ecological communities in the area and at the Site. As noted, the ecological survey performed in 2007 provides the basis for this assessment. The results from the confirmatory survey performed in 2016 were consistent with the findings from the 2007 survey. Due to the lack of change, it is assumed that these results will not change prior to the start of construction. At this time there are no plans to perform additional ecological surveys. This being said, additional discussion and information has been added into Sections 3.4.3.1 (see response to RAI ER‐ECO‐1) and 3.4.3.2. ER‐ECO‐3: Clarify the status of the determination of jurisdictional wetlands by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers within the proposed CISF project boundary. ER Section 3.5.1 states that there are no riparian habitats or wetlands at the site. Provide information regarding any baseline wildlife trapping or capture‐and‐release surveys, nesting bird surveys, amphibian or reptile surveys, or wetland surveys performed at the site. Also, clarify whether, based on the National Wetland Inventory, any riverine habitat, freshwater pond habitat, and/or lake habitat is present within the proposed project area. This additional information is needed in accordance with 10 CFR 51.45(b) and (c), which requires that the ER include a description of the affected environment, discuss the impacts of the proposed action, and contain sufficient data to aid the NRC in its development of an independent analysis. Holtec Response: ER Section 3.5.1 has been clarified to note that there are no U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) jurisdictional wetlands at the site per the ELEA GNEP Siting Study Report section 2.5.2. As noted in Section 3.5.1, “Waters of the U.S. are defined within the Clean Water Act (CWA), as amended, and jurisdiction is addressed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) (33 CFR Part 328)”. For the sake of this report, only USACE designated wetlands are included. That being said, the National Wetlands Inventory has been reviewed. The NWI shows two freshwater ponds, one lake habitat, and one riverine habitat within the proposed property. It should be noted that per the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Data Limitations, Exclusions, and

Precautions the NWI maps are prepared from the analysis of high altitude imagery and “A margin of

error is inherent in the use of imagery; thus, detailed on‐the‐ground inspection of any particular site

may result in revision of the wetland boundaries or classification established through image analysis”.


of 52

Additionally, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife states that regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over wetlands may

define and describe wetlands in a different manner than the NWI.

These classifications with accompanying maps are further explained below:

Lake Habitats:

Name Map Reference Acres Class Code

Laguna Gatuna (Salt)

L2937 391.73 L

Classification code: L

System Lacustrine (L): The Lacustrine System includes wetlands and deepwater habitats with all of the following characteristics: (1) situated in a topographic depression or a dammed river channel; (2) lacking trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, and emergent mosses or lichens with 30 percent or greater areal coverage; and (3) total area of at least 8 hectares (ha) (20 acres). Similar wetlands and deepwater habitats totaling less than 8 ha are also included in the Lacustrine System if an active wave‐formed or bedrock shoreline feature makes up all or part of the boundary, or if the water depth in the deepest part of the basin equals or exceeds 2.5 m (8.2 ft) at low water. Lacustrine waters may be tidal or nontidal, but ocean‐derived salinity is always less than 0.5 ppt.

Freshwater Ponds:

Map Reference Acres Class Code

L3024 1.79 PUBF

L2981 0.32 PUBF

L3006 16.31 PUBF

Classification code: PUBF

System Palustrine (P): The Palustrine System includes all nontidal wetlands dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, emergent mosses or lichens, and all such wetlands that occur in tidal areas where salinity due to ocean‐derived salts is below 0.5 ppt. It also includes wetlands lacking such vegetation, but with all of the following four characteristics: (1) area less than 8 ha (20 acres); (2) active wave‐formed or bedrock shoreline features lacking; (3) water depth in the deepest part of basin less than 2.5 m (8.2 ft) at low water; and (4) salinity due to ocean‐derived salts less than 0.5 ppt. Class Unconsolidated Bottom (UB): Includes all wetlands and deepwater habitats with at least 25% cover of particles smaller than stones (less than 6‐7 cm), and a vegetative cover less than 30%. Water Regime Semipermanently Flooded (F): Surface water persists throughout the growing season in most years. When surface water is absent, the water table is usually at or very near the land surface.


of 52

Riverine Habitat:

Map Reference Acres Class Code

R14 N/A R4SBC

Classification code: R4SBC

System Riverine (R): The Riverine System includes all wetlands and deepwater habitats contained within a channel, with two exceptions: (1) wetlands dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, emergent mosses, or lichens, and (2) habitats with water containing ocean‐derived salts of 0.5 ppt or greater. A channel is an open conduit either naturally or artificially created which periodically or continuously contains moving water, or which forms a connecting link between two bodies of standing water. Subsystem Intermittent (4): This Subsystem includes channels that contain flowing water only part of the year. When the water is not flowing, it may remain in isolated pools or surface water may be absent. Class Streambed (SB): Includes all wetlands contained within the Intermittent Subsystem of the Riverine System and all channels of the Estuarine System or of the Tidal Subsystem of the Riverine System that are completely dewatered at low tide. Water Regime Seasonally Flooded (C): Surface water is present for extended periods especially early in the growing season, but is absent by the end of the growing season in most years. The water table after flooding ceases is variable, extending from saturated to the surface to a water table well below the ground surface.


of 52

Figure 1: Map of project area showing hydrology features


of 52

Figure 2: Map of project area as presented in NWI Wetlands Mapper

Sources: U.S. Fish & Wildlife, National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Wetlands Mapper. https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/Mapper.html


of 52

ER‐AQ‐2: Clarify and explain the need for an air permit. ER Section 1.4.2.3 and ER Table 1.4.1 (Holtec, 2017b) state the onsite concrete batch plant requires an air permit. In contrast, ER Section 4.6.1 (Holtec, 2017b) states no air permits will be required because of the low estimated emission levels which include emissions from the concrete batch plant (see ER Tables 4.6.1 to 4.6.2). Clarify the inconsistency regarding the need for an air permit along with an explanation for this expectation. This information is needed in accordance with 10 CFR 51.45(d), which requires that the ER include a description of the status of compliance with applicable environmental quality standards and requirements, including limitations and requirements which have been imposed by Federal, State, regional, and local agencies having responsibility for environmental protection. Holtec Response: Background on NAAQS & NMAAQS: Per NMED Permitting Regulations as stipulated by 20.2.72 and 20.2.73 NMAC (Ref. 2), air quality permits are required for stationary sources emitting amounts of criteria air pollutants in excess of maximum allowable concentration limits as required by the NAAQS and NMAAQS.

NAAQS NMAAQS

CO CO

NO2 NOx

SOs SO2

PM H2S

Pb Reduced Sulfur (excluding H2S)

Non‐methane Hydrocarbons (NMHC) Reduced sulfur, usually referred to as Total Reduced Sulfur (TRS) compounds, can include carbonyl sulfide [COS], carbon disulfide [CS2], hydrogen sulfide [H2S], methyl mercapton [CH4S], dimethyl sulfide [(CH3)2S], and dimethyl disulfide [(CH3)2S2] (Ref. 4 and 6). NMHC are a subset of non‐methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOC), which are otherwise identical to VOCs, except for the absence of methane. NMVOCs are highly varied in chemical composition but display similar behaviors in the atmosphere. Methane is not a significant indicator of air quality, and therefore excluded from consideration (Ref. 1). Repeal of TSP Standard: Until recently, New Mexico retained the Total Suspended Particulates (TSP) standard to protect the public from larger particulates (dust). TSP are measured regardless of their size and include all airborne solid and low vapor pressure liquid particles having aerodynamic particle sizes from below 0.01‐100µm and larger. Though listed in Table 3.6.6 as a NMAAQS, the NMED AQB determined that the state and federal air quality standards for PM10 and PM2.5 are sufficient to protect public health. The Environmental Improvement Board unanimously approved to repeal the TSP standard, effective November 30, 2018. Subsequently, to address air quality affected by dust, areas with “historically


of 52

documented” or “known seasonal” exceptional events are now required to have dust mitigation plans. For example, Doña Ana and Luna Counties in southern New Mexico were identified by the EPA as areas to be covered by mitigation plans. The AQB developed a dust mitigation plan and ultimately adopted the Fugitive Dust Control Rule, applicable only to Doña Ana and Luna Counties, and effective January 1, 2019 (Ref. 3). Stationary vs. Mobile Emission Sources: As mentioned, for permitting purposes, emissions thresholds are considered only if they originate from a stationary source. Though mobile sources and cumulative emissions were analyzed for various stages of the proposed project, these emissions are not relevant to the NMED air permitting requirements (Ref. 3) as per 20.2.72 and 20.2.73 NMAC (Ref. 2) (excerpts below).

20.2.72.200 NMAC ‐ APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION, MODIFICATION, NSPS, AND NESHAP ‐ PERMITS AND REVISIONS:

A. Permits must be obtained from the department by: (1) Any person constructing a stationary source which has a potential emission rate greater than 10 pounds per hour or 25 tons per year of any regulated air contaminant for which there is a National or New Mexico Ambient Air Quality Standard. If the specified threshold in this subsection is exceeded for any one regulated air contaminant, all regulated air contaminants with National or New Mexico Ambient Air Quality Standards emitted are subject to permit review. Within this subsection, the potential emission rate for nitrogen dioxide shall be based on total oxides of nitrogen;

20.2.73.200 NMAC ‐ NOTICE OF INTENT: A. Applicability:

(1) Any owner or operator intending to construct a new stationary source which has a potential emission rate greater than 10 tons per year of any regulated air contaminant or 1 ton per year of lead shall file a notice of intent with the department.

Therefore, only emissions from the proposed concrete batch plant (CBP) should be considered for air permitting requirements. Proposed CBP (Ref. 3): As an industry‐specific standard, the NMED classifies concrete batch plants as minor source facilities. Minor sources have the potential to emit (PTE) > 10 pounds per hour (PPH) or > 25 tons per year (TPY) of criteria pollutants. However, facilities which emit less pollutants than cited for a minor source permit but emit more than 10 TPY of any one criteria pollutant need not apply for an air permit. These facilities must still report their emissions and be issued a Notice of Intent (NOI). Furthermore, for facilities with PTE < 10 TPY of any criteria pollutant, neither an air permit nor NOI is required. Based on emissions data provided for the proposed CBP, the only stationary source of criteria air pollutants in the proposed project, an air permit is not required (NPR) as emission levels for each criteria air pollutant are well below the 10 PPH/10 TPY threshold (Table 4.6.1 and Table 4.6.2). Air quality dispersion modeling is not required and Holtec is not required to submit further information on emissions to NMED for NPR determination.


of 52

Summary: Should the CBP exceed the stated bounding levels of 10 PPH or 10 TPY, Holtec must submit an application for an air quality permit, as detailed below.

General Construction Permit for Concrete Batch Plants (GCP‐5): emissions over 10 PPH/25 TPY for any single criteria air pollutant

Notice of Intent (NOI) only: emissions less than 10 PPH/25 TPY for any single criteria air pollutant

Section 1.4.2.3 and Table 1.4.1 have been revised to clarify the permitting requirements based on the information presented above. Sources:

1. European Environment Agency. https://www.eea.europa.eu Website accessed February 2019. 2. New Mexico Administrative Code (NMAC). 2019. New Mexico State Records Center and

Archives. Commission of Public Records. 3. New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) Air Quality Bureau (AQB).

https://www.env.nm.gov/air‐quality. Website accessed February 2019. 4. Sampling of Ambient Air for Total Suspended Particulate Matter (SPM) and PM10 Using High

Volume (HV) Sampler. June 1999. Compendium of Methods for the Determination of Inorganic Compounds in Ambient Air. Compendium Method IO‐2.1. EPA/625/R‐96/010a

5. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). www.epa.gov/criteria‐air‐pollutants. Website accessed February 2019.

6. U.S. EPA Air Emission Measurement Center (EMC). EMC Promulgated Test Methods. Method 16A – Total Reduced Sulfur ‐ Impinger. www.epa.gov/emc. Website accessed February 2019.

ER‐AQ‐3: Clarify what the bounding levels of air emissions are for criteria pollutants by addressing the following topics:

• Clarify the emission level estimates associated with each stage (construction, operation, decommissioning) for each phase over the licensed life of the project, including any overlap of stages and phases

• Ensure the ER air quality assessment distinctly addresses criteria pollutants [e.g., carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10), sulfur dioxide].

If the emission levels currently in the ER are not bounding, revise the emission levels and associated impact analyses accordingly. Specifying overlap of project stages (i.e., construction, operation, and decommissioning) and phases (Phases 1‐20) is an important consideration for identifying the bounding emission inventory. Bounding the peak emission levels relates to both the maximum potential impact and the level of impact analyses conducted in the ER. The applicant did not conduct air dispersion modeling or further impacts evaluation beyond what is presented in the ER Section 4.6.1 (Holtec, 2017b) because estimated emission levels were below a threshold of 10 pounds per hour [per 20 New Mexico Administrative Code (NMAC) 2.72] and 10 tons per year (20 NMAC 2.73). However, the estimated project level emissions in ER Tables 4.6.1 to 4.6.4 (Holtec, 2017b) are close to these thresholds (9.24 pounds per hour and 9.94 tons per year) and if phases occur simultaneously these thresholds may be exceeded. If the initial (Phase 1)


of 52

construction stage occurs simultaneously with either the Phase 2 construction or Phase 1 operation, the maximum emission levels currently described in the ER would be exceeded along with the NMAC thresholds that were used to justify the level of analysis in the ER. Since the air emission estimates for Phase 1 construction [see ER Tables 6.4.1 and 6.4.2, (Holtec, 2017b)] and subsequent Phases 2 to 20 construction differ [see ER Tables 6.4.3 and 6.4.4, (Holtec, 2017b)], ensure any revisions to ER Table 1.3 and determination of bounding emission levels reflect this distinction (see RAI PA‐5). For emission levels by stage, ER Tables 4.6.1 and 4.6.2 (Holtec, 2017b), provide estimated emission levels for Phase 1 (initial construction). ER Section 4.6.1.2 (Holtec, 2017b) states that Phases 2 to 20 construction emission levels are estimated at 15 percent of the Phase 1 initial construction emission levels. The NRC staff assumes that operation stage emissions can be calculated by subtracting the Phase 2 to 20 construction estimates from the emission estimates in ER Tables 4.6.3 and 4.6.4. ER Section 4.6.1.4 (Holtec, 2017b) does not quantify decommissioning emissions but states that these emissions are expected to be similar or less than those from construction; however, it is not clear whether this refers to initial construction (Phase 1) or subsequent construction (i.e., Phases 2 to 20). If decommissioning emissions are at initial construction stage levels (i.e., Phase 1) then overlapping with the operation stage emission levels would exceed the maximum emission levels currently described in the ER and also exceed the NMAC threshold the applicant used to justify the level of analyses in the ER. The ER air quality assessment should address pollutants other than fugitive dust (e.g., carbon monoxide, PM2.5, NOx, and SOx). ER Sections 4.6.1.1 and 5.2 (Holtec, 2017b) state that fugitive dust is the primary air emission associated with the proposed action. However, ER Tables 4.6.2 to 4.6.4 (Holtec, 2017b) note that the proposed action generates more carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides than particulate matter. An accurate characterization of the bounding emission levels for the proposed action is needed in order for the NRC staff to determine whether the current estimates in the ER are bounding and below the threshold values. If the revised bounding emission inventory exceeds the NMAC threshold, provide an analysis of impacts for these new emissions (i.e., emission levels greater than originally analyzed in the ER). For example, if air dispersion modeling is not warranted, provide justification. This information is needed in accordance with 10 CFR 51.45(b) and (b)(1), which requires that the ER include a description of the proposed action and its potential impacts on the environment. Holtec Response Section 4.6.1.1 was revised to clarify that during the construction stage of Phase 1, the primary source of emissions is fugitive dust and engine emissions. Note that fugitive dust emissions levels are represented in Tables 4.6.1 through 4.6.4 as PM. Construction Stage of Phase 1 would be completed before any operations activities begin. The scale of construction of each subsequent phase would be considerably less that the construction of phase 1. As such, it is assumed that the considerably reduced construction activities for Phases 2‐20 would result in 15% of the emissions for phase 1 construction (see "ongoing construction" row in Tables 4.6.3 and 4.6.4). As stated in Section 4.6.1.2, Operating Stage emissions are independent of the number of Operating phases. Therefore, Table 4.6.3 and 4.6.4 are bounding in that they consider the Operating Stage emissions as well as the concurrent (overlapping) emissions from the ongoing construction stages of phases 2‐20. Additionally, it should be noted that the air quality assessment does address pollutants other than fugitive dust. Tables 4.6.1 through 4.6.4 illustrate that CO, NOX, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, VOC, CO2e, and PM (fugitive dust) have all been considered. Lastly, all SNF


of 52

would be removed from the site and operations activities ceased prior to the start of demolition activities (decommissioning related emissions). Section 4.6.1.4 has been revised to clarify this. This section was also revised to state that demolition emissions would be similar to Phase 1 construction emissions. This is conservative as it is reasonable to assume that innovations and improvements to construction equipment will be made that would further reduce emissions levels in the multiple years prior to decommissioning. As discussed above in this response and in the response to RAI ER‐AQ‐2, dispersion modelling is not required because no criteria pollutant will be greater than 10 pounds per hour and 10 tons per year in any year. ER‐AQ‐4: Provide the detailed information (e.g., calculations, inputs, sources, activities, and parameters) used to generate each of the emission inventories in ER Tables 4.6.1 to 4.6.4 (Holtec, 2017b). Ensure that all of the appropriate emission sources for the proposed action are included in these emission inventories. Revise the emission inventories as well as the associated impact analyses in the ER as appropriate. ER Section 4.6 (Holtec, 2017b) provides a limited description of how the emission inventories were calculated. Detailed information about the sources of all air emissions is needed for NRC to independently verify the emission inventories. This information is needed to conduct a technical review of the calculations. This information in needed in accordance with 10 CFR 51.45(c), which requires analyses in environmental reports to be quantitative to the fullest extent practicable and contain sufficient data to aid the NRC in its development of an independent analysis. Holtec Response The attached Excel files provide the detailed information (e.g., calculations, inputs, sources, activities, and parameters) used to generate each of the emission inventories (ER Tables 4.6.1 to 4.6.4). Note that the required information for RAI ER‐AQ‐7 is also included in the Excel files with the addition of Hazardous Air Particulates levels. ER‐AQ‐5: Provide a detailed description, to include a figure, of the distance from air emission sources to receptors (e.g., potash mine workers, residences). The information should:

• Clarify whether the distances to residences identified in the ER Section 2.2.1 (Holtec, 2017b) are from the proposed site boundary or the center of the proposed site.

• Consider the activities and potential air emission sources (e.g., the rail spur and the intermodal facility) that occur outside of the 420.9 hectare [1,040 acre] site boundary of the proposed Holtec CISF.

• Account for receptors other than residences (e.g., workers at the potash mine) identified in ER Section 2.2.1 (Holtec, 2017b).

ER Section 2.2.1 (Holtec, 2017b) specifies the distance from the proposed Holtec CISF to residences in several directions. Clarify if this measurement is from the center of the CISF property or the boundary. The environmental impact analysis of air emission sources and receptors will include all identified residences and their spatial relationship to all project emission sources (CISF, rail spur, concrete batch plant, intermodal facility). Because the construction and operation of the rail spur or construction and


of 52

operation of the intermodal facility occur outside the 420.9 hectare [1,040 acre] site boundary, clarify how close these sources are to (i) the residences described in ER Section 2.2.1 and (ii) other receptors such as the Intrepid Mining Facility which might be closer to rail spur or intermodal facility than the nearest residence is to the proposed Holtec CISF. Furthermore, clarify whether the concrete batch plant is a stationary or mobile plant that would be relocated over the lifetime of the project including beyond the 420.9 hectare [1,040 acre] acre Holtec CISF project boundary. Understanding the distance between air emission sources and potential receptors is an important consideration when assessing air quality impacts. This information is needed in accordance with 10 CFR 51.45(b) and (b)(1), which requires that the ER include a description of the proposed action and its potential impacts on the environment. Holtec Response In any and all scenarios, the annual emission will be less than 10 TPY of any criteria pollutant as indicated by Tables 4.6.1 thorough 4.6.4. Given this fact, modelling of receptors was not performed and is not required. Distances to the nearest residence and other potential receptors, such as workers at potash mines, are provided in the ER in Chapter 3. Distances are from the approximate center of the Holtec site. The concrete batch plant is not a permanent facility, but is a mobile type batch plant. While in use at the Site, the batch plant would be located as shown on Figure 2.2.3 of the ER. ER‐AQ‐6: For the cumulative impacts assessment, supplement the regional characterization of the air emissions by addressing:

• Future regional air emissions considering the life span of the proposed action (not just current emission levels)

• Pollutants other than fugitive dust ER Section 3.6.2 (Holtec, 2017b) characterizes the area’s current National Ambient Air Quality Standards attainment status and provides recent pollutant emission levels for Lea, Eddy, Roosevelt, and Chaves Counties. ER Section 5.1.2 (Holtec, 2017b) states that for purposes of the cumulative impact assessment, the existing non‐nuclear activities are assumed to continue at current levels. The basis for the assumption that non‐nuclear activities continue at current levels or provide information related to future air emission levels in the region for the nonnuclear activities should be provided. In addition, the cumulative effects analysis in ER Section 5.2 (Holtec, 2017b) only considers fugitive dust based on the statement that the proposed action’s primary air emission would be fugitive dust. However, the emission estimates in ER Tables 4.6.2 and 4.6.4 (Holtec, 2017b) indicate that the proposed action generates more carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and volatile organic compounds than particulate matter. The characterization of regional air emissions should address pollutants other than fugitive dust. This information is needed in accordance with 10 CFR 51.45(b), which requires that the ER include a description of the affected environment. Holtec Response The emissions from all criteria pollutants would be less than 10 TPY during both the initial construction and during the phased construction and operations. All of the other projects considered in this cumulative impact analysis have either been constructed or would be constructed before the CISF construction begins. All air emissions, including fugitive dust, would be emitted sporadically and then


of 52

disperse due to the meteorology of the area. This would result in minimal short term, if any, cumulative impacts from air emissions. The basis for the assumption that non‐nuclear activities continue at current levels is based on the fact that there are no planned or foreseeable developments or activities, in the public domain, that would cause a significant change from the current rates. ER‐AQ‐7: Clarify the bounding levels of air emissions for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and non‐radiological hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) by addressing the following topics:

• Clarify the emission level estimates associated with each stage (construction, operation, decommissioning) for each phase over the licensed life of the project, including any overlap of stages and phases

• Characterize the potential impacts of the proposed action’s emissions for VOCs and non‐radiological HAPs.

Similar to criteria pollutants, identifying the overlap of project stages (i.e., construction, operation, and decommissioning) is important for establishing the bounding emission inventory (see RAI AQ‐2) in order to evaluate the maximum potential impact. For example, ER Tables 4.6.1 through 4.6.4 (Holtec, 2017b) do not include non‐radiological HAPs and it is unclear if emission levels for VOCs are bounding. The air quality impact assessment in ER Section 4.6.1 (Holtec, 2017b) does not address impacts from VOCs or non‐radiological HAPs. ER Tables 4.6.1 to 4.6.4 (Holtec, 2017b) indicate that the proposed action generates more VOCs than any other pollutant. Quantification of the levels of non‐radiological HAPs generated by the proposed action is a consideration in the impact assessment (e.g., comparison of project emission levels to State and/or Federal regulatory thresholds for HAPs such as 40 CFR 61). This information is needed in accordance with 10 CFR 51.45(b) and (b)(1), which requires that the ER include a description of the proposed action and its potential impacts on the environment. Holtec Response See the response to RAI ER‐AQ‐3 for clarification of emission level estimates associated with each stage and their potential impacts. The attached Excel files provide the detailed information (e.g., calculations, inputs, sources, activities, and parameters) used to generate each of the emission inventories (ER Tables 4.6.1 to 4.6.4). Note that the required information for RAI ER‐AQ‐4 is also included in the Excel files with the addition of Hazardous Air Particulates levels. ER‐AQ‐8: Provide a description of the specific measures that will be implemented to mitigate air effluent emissions from the proposed action and if any mitigation measures were accounted for in the emission inventory documented in ER Tables 4.6.1 to 4.6.4 (Holtec, 2017b). The description of any mitigation measures incorporated in the tables should:

• Identify any mitigation measures incorporated into these estimates • Specify the effectiveness of the mitigation measure • Provide the basis for the effectiveness of the mitigation measure

ER Sections 1.4.2.3 and 6.6 (Holtec, 2017b) describe that the applicant will implement best management practices to mitigate air emissions. However, the specific mitigation measures that are considered best management practices are not identified. Clarify whether all of these specific best management practices, or only a subset, will be implemented.


of 52

This additional information is needed in accordance with 10 CFR 51.45(b) and (c), which requires that the ER discuss the environmental impacts of the proposed action and alternatives available for reducing and avoiding adverse environmental impacts. Holtec Response As discussed in the response to RAI ER‐MM‐1, Chapter 6 has been revised to clarify commitments to mitigation measures. Mitigation measures are generally qualitative versus quantitative. The implementation of these measures may or may not have measurable impacts, but are instead, best management practices that can be implemented to minimize potential effects on the surrounding environment. It should be noted that many air emission publications, include the EPA’s AP‐42, state that watering activities to mitigate fugitive dust can reduce these emissions up to 90%. That being said, the data presented in ER Tables 4.6.1 through 4.6.4 do not account for any reductions as a result of implementing these mitigation measures. ER‐CC‐1: Address the following aspects of climate change as they relate to the proposed action’s greenhouse gas emissions:

• Describe any relevant regional, state, or local goals or laws that address climate change, greenhouse gas emission levels, or both.

• Disclose whether any mitigation, project design, or adaptation measures will be implemented to address greenhouse gas emissions resulting from proposed action activities

• Describe any areas where the environmental impacts of climate change overlap with the potential environmental impacts of the proposed action on resources (e.g., water usage and availability)

ER Section 4.6.1 (Holtec, 2017b) assesses that the amount of greenhouse gases generated by the proposed action has a minimal impact since the project’s estimated emission levels are below the Federal reporting standard in 40 CFR 98.2. Clarify (i) whether there are any other relevant regional, state, or local goals or laws that address climate change and (ii) whether any mitigation, project design, or adaptation measures will be implemented to address greenhouse gas emissions from the proposed action. Additionally, address whether there are any areas where the environmental impacts of climate change overlap with the potential environmental impacts of the proposed action on resources (e.g., water usage/availability, ambient air temperature, etc.). This additional information is needed in accordance with 10 CFR 51.45(b) through (d), which require that the ER include: a discussion of the impacts of the proposed action; alternatives available for reducing and avoiding adverse environmental impacts; and a description of the status of compliance with applicable environmental quality standards and requirements, including limitations and requirements which have been imposed by Federal, State, regional, and local agencies having responsibility for environmental protection. Holtec Response For an exhaustive list of regional, state, and local goals and laws which address climate change and greenhouse gas emissions, see the attached file. There have been several notable political actions related to reducing greenhouse gas emissions in New Mexico. The New Mexico Legislature passed a statewide Renewable Energy Portfolio law in 2004 which requires utilities to procure 20% of their electricity from renewable sources by 2020. Additionally, Executive Order 05‐033 was issued by the


of 52

Governor in 2005 to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 10% of 2000 levels by 2020 and by 75% by 2050. In 2015, New Mexico was 37th in the United States for state‐wide carbon dioxide emissions, with 50.7 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions (see Figure below).

Source: EIA 2019. The table below presents New Mexico carbon dioxide emissions from 1980 until 2016. As shown in the table, carbon dioxide emissions in New Mexico have decreased since peaking in 2005. Electric power generation is the largest source of carbon dioxide emissions, accounting for approximately 47% of all state‐wide emissions. Other sources of carbon dioxide emissions are: transportation activities at 29%; industrial activities at 15%; residential activities at 5%; and commercial activities at 4% (EIA 2019).

Year Carbon Dioxide Emissions (million metric tons)

1980 44.8

1990 53.7

2000 58.6

2005 60.5

2010 53.8

2015 50.7

2016 48.7

Greenhouse gas compounds are typically evaluated at sites with stationary equipment that emit more than 25,000 tons per year of carbon dioxide‐equivalent (40 CFR 98, Section 98.2). Though emissions from activities at the CISF Site would be from non‐stationary sources, the greenhouse gas emissions would be well below this minimal standard; thus, impacts of greenhouse gas emissions from this project on air quality would be minimal. As shown in Section 4.6 of the ER, the CISF would emit less than 2,500 tons of carbon dioxide‐equivalent in any year, which is a factor of 10 less than the regulatory threshold and amounts to an increase in state‐wide emissions by less than 4.7 x 10‐3 percent (based on 2016


of 52

emissions converted to tons). As such, the greenhouse gas emissions from the CISF would be insignificant. The only mitigation measure identified that would be in place to minimize any potential carbon dioxide emissions would be construction phase best management practices (such as watering) would be used to minimize fugitive dusts. There are no notable areas where the environmental impacts of climate change overlap with the potential environmental impacts of the Proposed Action on resources (e.g., water usage and availability). References: EIA 2019 Energy Information Agency (EIA). “State Carbon Dioxide Emission Data.” Available at:

https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/state/. Accessed on January 23, 2019. ER‐SOC‐1: Provide an estimate of indirect and induced jobs that would be generated in the region of influence over the licensed life of the proposed project. ER Sections 4.8.1 and 4.8.2 (Holtec, 2017b) state that approximately 80 construction‐related workers including oversight and management are expected during Phase 1, and, when combined with the operating workforce, the total number of annual workers at the CISF could be as many as 135 during Phases 2‐20. In addition to the estimate of direct jobs related to the project, provide information regarding both indirect and induced jobs associated with proposed project. This information is needed in accordance with 10 CFR 51.45(b)(1), which requires that the ER include a description of the impacts of the proposed action. Holtec Response Holtec does not expect there to be significant creation of indirect or induced jobs. As stated, if any indirect or induced jobs are created, the ER assumes that they would be filled by employees already existing in the ROI workforce. Section 4.8.1 and 4.8.2 have been revised to clarify this. We believe this to be a conservative assumption, as any indirect or induced jobs that might be created would be a boon to the local economy. ER‐SOC‐2: To inform the analysis of the environmental and other costs and benefits of the proposed action, provide any available information concerning annuity payments made to Lea and Eddy Counties, and the cities of Hobbs and Carlsbad regarding the SNF storage at the Holtec CISF. Describe any estimated annuity payments (i.e., monetary compensation) that would be provided by the applicant to Lea and Eddy Counties and the cities of Hobbs and Carlsbad associated with operating the CISF. This additional information is needed in accordance with 10 CFR 51.45(b)(1), and (c), which requires that the ER discuss the impacts of the proposed action, and include consideration of the benefits and costs of the proposed action and its alternatives.


of 52

Holtec Response The combined estimated annuity payments will be in the range of $15,000,000 to $25,000,000 over the life of the facility. ER‐NOI‐1: Provide estimates of noise levels that would be generated during construction and operation of the proposed CISF, specifically for construction and operation of the concrete batch plant and rail spur. ER Section 4.6.2 (Holtec, 2017b) provides noise estimates for construction and operation activities. To support the NRC staff’s evaluation of potential noise impacts to offsite and onsite receptors, provide additional information to assess impacts from noise generated from the construction and operation of either the concrete batch plant or the rail spur. This additional information is needed in accordance with 10 CFR 51.45(b) and (b)(1), which requires that the ER include a description of the affected environment and a discussion of the impacts of the proposed action. Holtec Response Noise levels associated with the construction and operation of the concrete batch plant would be consistent with the levels provided for other heavy construction equipment that will be used at the CISF. Mention of the batch plant is specifically added to Section 4.6.2 and Table 4.6.5 along with an additional reference added in Chapter 10 to the "Construction Noise Handbook" (prepared for the Federal Highway Administration in August 2006). Additionally, language on the construction and operation of the new rail spur has been added to Section 4.6.2. ER‐POH‐1: Provide additional information (including a figure of receptor locations) regarding the location and orientation of receptors used in public dose calculations relative to the location of the loaded casks at the CISF facility. ER Sections 4.12.2 and 4.12.2.1 (Holtec, 2017b) provide a limited description of the public dose calculations for the proposed action and cite the SAR analyses and supporting documents. Provide information about the positioning of modeled public dose receptor locations relative to the constructed and loaded CISF. A figure of the proposed facility showing the locations of loaded casks and the surrounding environment where receptors are located should be provided. This information is needed in accordance with 10 CFR 51.45(c), which requires analyses in environmental reports to be quantitative to the fullest extent practicable and contain sufficient data to aid the NRC in its development of an independent analysis. Holtec Response A single HI‐STORM UMAX VVM model is used for the MCNP shielding with F5 ring detector tallies at various distances in concentric circles from the cask. The dose rate from the array of casks is calculated summing dose rates from the grid of x and y locations of each HI‐STORM UMAX VVM. The dose rates from the array of loaded HI‐STORM UMAX VVMs at each distance from the array is the maximum possible dose rate of any possible receptor location (at the specified distance) from the nearest cask. The methodology is more specifically detailed in the updated HI‐STORE CIS Facility FSAR Chapter 7 (Shielding) Proposed


of 52

Revision 0G and in the updated HI‐2177599 Revision 1 “HI‐STORE CIS Facility Site Boundary Dose Rates Calculations for HI‐STORM UMAX System”. ER‐POH‐2: Provide documentation of the revised source term modeling used in the ER public dose calculations. ER Sections 4.12.2 and 4.12.2.1 (Holtec, 2017b) provide a limited description of the public dose calculations for the proposed action and cite the SAR analyses and supporting documents. The NRC staff review of the available documentation of the design basis fuel used for the dose calculations indicates that the fuel characteristics (e.g., burnup, cooling time, enrichment) documented in SAR Table 7.1.1 (Holtec, 2017c) represent changes to the design basis fuel used in the referenced supporting calculations; document the applicable source term calculations (e.g., running SAS2H or SCALE). Information provided in response to this RAI should identify any significant differences in the revised source modeling from the referenced UMAX FSAR methods that could affect the public dose calculation results. This information is needed in accordance with 10 CFR 51.45(c), which requires analyses in environmental reports to be quantitative to the fullest extent practicable and contain sufficient data to aid the NRC in its development of an independent analysis. Holtec Response Source terms used for the HI‐STORE CIS Facility Shielding calculations now directly reference source terms generated for newly added Reference [7.4.2] in the HI‐STORE CIS FSAR. Gamma, Neutron, and Cobalt‐60 source terms are now provided in Table 7.1.2 through Table 7.1.5 for the HI‐STORE CIS Facility design basis Fuel Assembly burnup, initial enrichment, and cooling time combination shown in Table 7.1.1. ER‐POH‐3: Provide additional information about the ER public dose calculation methods and results. Specifically, provide the following information regarding the site‐specific public dose calculation methods and results for the loaded CISF:

• Description of the site‐specific dose calculation model geometry • Documentation of the site specific materials properties that affect shielding and dose

calculations including, but not limited to, concrete and the soil that surrounds the subsurface storage modules, and including a comparison of any generic or general material properties used in calculations with site specific or expected values

• Documentation of dose calculation methods and results for the three source terms that were modeled (neutron, decay gamma, and 60Co)

• Documentation of variance reduction techniques that were applied to each unique source term and dose calculation (e.g., maximally exposed individual; nearest resident)

• MCNP input files for each source term modeled and the computing platform used • Relative errors or variance reported for all dose results • An explanation for the difference in the reported distance from the nearest storage cask to

site boundary {400 m [1,310 ft]} and the receptor annual occupancy time (2,000 hr) reported in the referenced SAR Table 1.0.1 (Holtec, 2017c) and what is similarly reported for the public receptor in the ER Section 4.12.2.1 (Holtec, 2017b) as a “maximally exposed individual” located at the nearest fence line at 100 m [328 ft] from the storage pads for “full‐time occupancy” which is further clarified in ER Section 4.12.2.3 (Holtec, 2017b) as “for the entire year.”


of 52

ER Sections 4.12.2 and 4.12.2.1 (Holtec, 2017b) provide a limited description of the public dose calculations for the proposed action and cite the SAR analyses and supporting documents. This information is needed in accordance with 10 CFR 51.45(c), which requires analyses in environmental reports to be quantitative to the fullest extent practicable and contain sufficient data to aid the NRC in its development of an independent analysis. Holtec Response Additional information for the ER public dose calculation methods and results are provided below to address each bulleted request, below.

[a]. Site specific geometry is now provided in Figure 7.4.4 in the HI‐STORE CIS FSAR for the 500 UMAX VVMs in the first phase of facility construction and in Figure 4.12.1 in the Environmental Report for 10,000 UMAX VVMs. See also the response to RAI ER‐POH‐1.

[b]. Material Properties are now more clearly and extensively provided in Table 7.3.1 of the HI‐STORE CIS Facility FSAR (Proposed Revision 0G). Generic material properties that previously were included in the HI‐STORM UMAX FSAR Table 5.3.2 that are used in the HI‐STORE CIS Facility Shielding calculations are now directly placed into Table 7.3.1 of the HI‐STORE CIS Facility FSAR (Proposed Revision 0G). Since HI‐STORE CIS Facility shielding material properties are consolidated into a single table (Table 7.3.1, Proposed Revision 0G), the need for a comparison between generic or general material properties (listed in the HI‐STORM UMAX FSAR Table 5.3.2) and site specific or expected values (Table 7.3.1, Rev. 0) is obviated.

[c]. The principal calculational approach, including principal assumptions and methodologies, are directly taken from the HI‐STORM UMAX FSAR, and are incorporated by reference, as stated in Section 7.0 of the HI‐STORE CIS Facility FSAR. Source terms used for the HI‐STORE CIS Facility Shielding calculations now directly reference source terms generated for newly added Reference [7.4.2] in the HI‐STORE CIS FSAR (Proposed Revision 0G). Gamma, Neutron, and Cobalt‐60 source terms are now provided in Table 7.1.2 through Table 7.1.5 for the HI‐STORE CIS Facility design basis Fuel Assembly burnup, initial enrichment, and cooling time combination shown in Table 7.1.1.

[d]. The uncertainty analysis and variance reduction is detailed in Section 5.4 of Reference [1.0.6] in

the HI‐STORE CIS Facility FSAR. A new sentence is placed in Subsection 4.12.2 of the Environmental Report to reference the location of the more detailed description of the uncertainty analysis and variance reduction techniques. Additionally, Reference “Holtec 2016c” is added for direct reference to the HI‐STORM UMAX FSAR in Chapter 10.

[e]. MCNP input files are provided in the HI‐STORE CIS Shielding Calculation Packages HI‐2177599 and

HI‐2177600. Relative errors are reported within the shielding calculation packages and associated results files, but use the same format as the HI‐STORM UMAX FSAR which do not provide relative errors in the SAR dose rate results tables.

[f]. The statement with the nearest fence line at 100 meters is corrected. The maximally exposed

public individual is assumed to be at the site boundary, which is 400 meters (1312 ft) from the nearest loaded UMAX VVM. The wording “for the entire year” is changed to “for 2000 hours per year”.


of 52

ER‐POH‐4: Provide the documentation of the public dose calculations in the ER that are based on the full bounding inventory of 10,000 canisters. ER Section 4.12.2.1 (Holtec, 2017b) provides public dose estimates for a maximally exposed individual, nearest resident, and local population based on “operation of the CIS facility at its maximum capacity.” ER Section 4.2.12 (Holtec, 2017b) states that “(a)ll radiological estimates are based on the bounding capacity of the CIS facility, which is 100,000 MTUs consisting of 10,000 UMAX storage units.” The reported maximally exposed individual dose is cited to the SAR while the nearest resident and population doses have no citation. The public dose calculations in SAR Chapters 7 and 11 (Holtec, 2017c) are limited to a single phase of 500 canisters (SAR 7.4.2.1, Holtec, 2017c). No dose calculations were identified in the SAR that were based on the full inventory of 10,000 canisters. This information is needed in accordance with 10 CFR 51.45(c), which requires analyses in environmental reports to be quantitative to the fullest extent practicable and contain sufficient data to aid the NRC in its development of an independent analysis. Holtec Response Table 4.12.4 and Figure 4.12.2 are added to the Environmental Report, which provide the dose rates as a function of distance from 10,000 Loaded HI‐STORM UMAX VVMs. Shielding Calculation Package HI‐2177599 has been updated to Revision 1 (Newly added reference [7.4.2] of the HI‐STORE CIS Facility FSAR) and includes documentation of these updated shielding calculations. ER‐CB‐1: Clarify the source for the no‐action alternative scenario 3 cost estimate. In ER Section 9.2.1 (Holtec, 2017b), the source of the scenario 3 estimate of $500 million per year is attributed to page 37 of a Government Accountability Office Report (GAO, 2014). The NRC staff have reviewed that document and were unable to locate the estimated value of $500 million per year. The requested information is needed in accordance with 10 CFR 51.45(c), which requires that the environmental report include consideration of the benefits and costs of the alternatives as well as contain sufficient data to aid the NRC in its development of an independent analysis. Holtec Response: The reference for the estimated liability of $500 million per year is found on page 37 of the in the GAO Report entitled, “Nuclear Waste Management: Key Attributes, Challenges, and Costs for the Yucca Mountain Repository and Two Potential Alternatives” (GAO 2009). This reference has been added into Chapter 10. All references to GAO reports have been corrected in Chapter 9 (GAO 2009 versus GAO 2014). ER‐CB‐2: Clarify the discrepancy in the estimated cost for the Holtec CISF construction stage in the application documents and revise the ER as appropriate. Provide a consistent cost estimate for the construction stage, by phase, to support analysis of the costs and benefits associated with the proposed action. In ER Table 9.2.4 (Holtec, 2017b) estimates Phase 1 construction stage costs at $222.3 million and full implementation (i.e., Phases 1 to 20) construction stage costs at $2.1 billion. In contrast, the document “HI‐STORE CIS Facility Financial Assurance & Project Life Cycle Cost Estimates” (Holtec, 2017d) estimates


of 52

Phase 1 construction stage costs at $182.9 million, but does not provide an estimate for full implementation. Explain the difference between these two documents. The requested information is needed in accordance with 10 CFR 51.45(c), which requires that the environmental report include consideration of the benefits and costs of the proposed action. Holtec Response This discrepancy was noted in the previous round of RAI submissions. Holtec Report, HI‐2177593 "Project Life Cycle Costs" has since been updated to match the values listed in the Environmental Report. ER‐CB‐3 Clarify the discussion of the net benefits or net losses attributed to the proposed action. In ER Section 9.2.3 (Holtec, 2017b) the introduction to the discussion of net benefits states that the proposed action would result in substantial net benefits compared to costs under both Phase 1 and Phase 1‐20 (full implementation). However, subsequent text in ER Section 9.2.3 states that under the full implementation (Phases 1‐20) of Scenario 2, the discounted costs for the proposed action are greater than the discounted costs for the no‐action alternative. More specifically, if no additional nuclear power plants shut down (i.e., Scenario 2) the proposed action incurs a net loss rather than a net benefit when the costs are discounted. The NRC staff requests clarification of the net benefits and net losses to analyze the cost benefit of the proposed action. The requested information is needed in accordance with 10 CFR 51.45(c), which requires that the environmental report include consideration of the benefits and costs of the proposed action and its alternatives. Holtec Response: Section 9.2.3 has been revised to clarify net benefits attributed to the proposed action. ER‐CB‐4 Identify who pays for the costs (e.g., transporting the SNF, construction, operation, and decommissioning the CISF) described in ER Section 9.2 (Holtec, 2017b) associated with the proposed action, including what costs the Federal government will pay or costs that Holtec expects to be reimbursed by the Federal government. In the ER, Chapter 9 (Holtec, 2017b) describes the costs associated with the various aspects of the proposed action such as developing the CISF, transporting the SNF, and operating the CISF. However, the analysis does not identify who would be responsible for these costs. To the extent Holtec has evaluated more than one option concerning ownership of fuel (i.e., SNF title), then the analysis should also address how those options affect responsibility for the identified costs (e.g., construction, operation, decommissioning), as well as any implications for the comparison of the costs and benefits associated with the proposed action, any options within the proposed action, and no‐action alternative. The requested information is needed in accordance with 10 CFR 51.45(c) which requires that the environmental report include consideration of the benefits and costs of the proposed action and its alternatives as well as contain sufficient data to aid the Commission in its development of an independent analysis.


of 52

Holtec Response The costs described in ER Section 9.2 are based on the costs to construct, operate, and decommission the facility. These same costs will apply to either option of fuel ownership. The entity that retains title to the fuel who will enters into the contract for use of the HI‐STORE, per Condition 17 of the license. The costs outlined in Section 9.2 apply to whichever entity enters into the contract. ER‐MM‐1: Holtec should identify all mitigation measure commitments that would be implemented to reduce the environmental impacts on all resource areas. As addressed in other resource‐area specific RAIs (PA‐2, PA‐3, PA‐4, LU‐8, GS‐3, GS‐4, AQ‐7, and CC‐1), Holtec should identify all mitigation measures that would be implemented to reduce the environmental impacts associated with construction, operation, and decommissioning of the proposed CISF. ER Chapter 6 (Holtec, 2017b) describes mitigation measures that could potentially be implemented to reduce environmental impacts of the proposed action and refers to ER Chapter 4 (Holtec, 2017b) for the specific impacts of use of the mitigation measures. The language is inconsistent between the ER chapters regarding whether the listed mitigation measures would be implemented (i.e., implemented mitigation measures that can be accounted for in the impact analyses). Specifically, ER Chapter 6 should (i) list all mitigation measures for each resource area that are required by Federal, State, or local regulations, (ii) identify all mitigation measures committed to be implemented, (iii) as applicable, indicate which mitigations measures have been credited in the impact analyses (and to what extent), (iv) as applicable, state the expected effectiveness of the implemented mitigation measures (e.g., for air quality), and (v) distinguish mitigation commitments that would be voluntary versus those required as part of a regulation. For example, an applicant could choose to implement a mitigation even though it is not required (e.g., using engines with higher tier ratings, which produce less emissions). This additional information is needed in accordance with 10 CFR 51.45(b) and (b)(1), which requires that the ER include a description of the proposed action and discuss the impacts of the proposed action. Holtec Response Chapter 6 has been revised to clarify commitments to mitigation measures (removed language on voluntary actions). Mitigation measures are generally qualitative versus quantitative. The implementation of these measures may or may not have measurable impacts, but are instead, best management practices that can be implemented to minimize potential effects on the surrounding environment. The results of Chapter 4 are independent of the use of the mitigation measures described in Chapter 6. Therefore, all mitigating measures would be considered positive and would further reduce the impacts as described in Chapter 4. ER‐CI‐1: Provide additional information on past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that may result in a potential for cumulative environmental impacts within an 80‐km [50‐mi] radius of the proposed CISF. In the ER Section 5.2 (Holtec, 2017b) states that non‐nuclear activities are limited to oil and gas exploration and development activities, mineral extraction (potash mining) activities, livestock grazing and agricultural activities. The NRC staff request verification that no new wind energy projects or transportation projects are planned for the 40 year cumulative impact analysis timeframe within an 80‐km [50‐mi] radius of the proposed CISF site boundary.


of 52

This additional information is needed in accordance with 10 CFR 51.45(c), which requires that the ER contain an analysis of cumulative impacts that may result from the proposed action. Holtec Response Section 5.1.2 has been revised to clarify the activities in the area of the site that currently exist. Additionally, it has been clarified that no known significant new or planned, for the reasonably foreseeable future, non‐nuclear projects will occur in the surrounding project area. Additional information specific to wind energy project and transportation projects is provided below. Transportation Projects: Per the New Mexico Department of Transportation, currently planned transportation projects in the vicinity of the site are limited to existing roadway and bridge rehabilitation and upgrades (NMDOT 2019). This is further supported by the information presented in the New Mexico 2040 Plan (NMLRP 2015). Additionally, according to both Lea County Public Works Department (LCPW 2019) and Eddy County Public Works Department (ECPW 2019) planned transportation projects are limited to existing roadway and bridge rehabilitation and upgrades. Current Wind Energy Projects: Per the information made available by the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) WindIQ Interactive Web Map and data obtained from the AWEA website, there are three existing online (in operation) wind projects within 80km of the proposed project boundary (Table 1 and Figure 1). There are no new wind projects under development or construction within 50 miles of the proposed project boundary.


of 52

Table 1: Wind Projects Located within 50 miles of proposed Holtec CISF project

Project Specifications Anderson Gaines Cavern Wildcat Map Reference No. 3 38 111

First Year Online 2014 2012 2012

State New Mexico Texas New Mexico

County Chaves Gaines Lea

Distance & Direction from proposed CISF

31.25 milesNNW

39.6 milesENE

36.7 miles NE

Latitude, Longitude 33.020166‐103.861647

32.688551‐103.062453

32.955401 ‐103.279578

Owner(s) Goldman Sachs (100%)

Texas Dispatchable Wind 1, LLC (100%)

Exelon Generation (51%), Unknown (49%)

Developer(s) BayWa r.e. Wind LLC Texas Dispatchable Wind 1 LLC

Kairos Energy

Turbine Radius (m) 1.65, 2 2 2.1

Hub Height (m) 80 78 90

Rotor Diameter (m) 100, 82 97 97

Phase Anderson Wind Project

Gaines Cavern Wind Project

Wildcat Wind Project

Phase Capacity (MW) 14.95 2 27.3

Turbine Count 8 1 13

Turbine OEM Vestas Gamesa Suzlon

Turbine Model V100‐2.0, V82 G97‐2.0 S97


of 52

Figure 1: Map showing wind energy projects in relation to the project location, 10km buffer, and 80km buffer (AWEA 2019)


of 52

Figure 2: Locations of wind energy projects (AWEA 2019) References: AWEA 2019 American Wind Energy Association, AWEA WindIQ Interactive Web Map, Available at:

http://gis.awea.org/arcgisportal/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=663f1edd000d4b9b8e8177a5b62be7a2. Accessed on January 23, 2019.


of 52

ECPW 2019 Eddy County New Mexico Public Works Department, Available at: https://www.co.eddy.nm.us/163/Public‐Works. Accessed on February 28, 2019.

LCPW 2019 Lea County New Mexico Public Works Department, Available at: https://www.leacounty.net/p/departments/public‐works. Accessed on February 28, 2019.

NMDOT 2019 New Mexico Department of Transportation, NMDOT Road Construction and Study Projects, Available at: http://dot.state.nm.us/content/nmdot/en/Projects.html. Accessed on February 28, 2019.

NMLRP 2015 New Mexico Department of Transportation, New Mexico 2040 Plan – NMDOT’s Long Range, Multi‐Modal Transportation Plan, Available at: http://dot.state.nm.us/content/nmdot/en/Planning.html. Accessed February 28, 2019.

ER‐CI‐2: Provide additional information to support the analysis of the cumulative impacts of both nuclear and non‐nuclear present and reasonably foreseeable future activities for all resource areas. In the ER Section 5.2 (Holtec, 2017b) provides information on the cumulative impacts of nuclear and non‐nuclear activities in the 80‐km [50‐mi] radius of the proposed CISF. Specifically, the ER discusses only 4 (land use, air quality, transportation of nuclear materials, and health and safety) of the 13 resource areas evaluated as part of the EIS. To support the NRC staff’s analysis of the potential cumulative impacts of the proposed action, address potential cumulative impacts relevant the remaining resource areas, including an evaluation of the environmental impacts of nuclear activities [e.g., Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, the National Enrichment Facility, International Isotopes Incorporated Fluorine Extraction Process and Depleted Uranium De‐conversion Plant, and Waste Control Specialists existing low level waste facility and proposed CISF] and non‐nuclear activities [e.g., oil and gas exploration and development activities, mineral extraction (potash mining) activities, livestock grazing, and agricultural activities]. This additional information is needed in accordance with 10 CFR 51.45(c), which requires that the ER contain an analysis of cumulative impacts that may result from the proposed action. Holtec Response Section 5.2 has been clarified to state that there is minimal potential for cumulative impacts of the proposed action to the above referenced resource areas. Nonetheless, additional information has been added to address each of these resource areas in support of this statement.

attachment 1 to holtec letter 5025041 - nrc: home page(holtec, 2017b) should be revised to address...

Documents