The governor and the state’s congressional delegation pitched a fit Tuesday when a federal agency finally gave the go-ahead for a nuclear energy project in Southeast New Mexico that locals want and have invested in. That was easy.
What they didn’t do was offer any alternatives for the storage of spent commercial nuclear fuel.
After five years of study, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission on Tuesday granted a license for Holtec International to store spent nuclear fuel on secluded property in Southeast New Mexico. The NRC approved the license application after a technical safety and security review, and an environmental impact review that found the impacts on land and water, industry and public health would be minimal.
The license allows Holtec to receive, possess, transfer and initially store 500 canisters of spent nuclear fuel for 40 years, with an option for an additional 40 years. Holtec hopes to eventually store underground up to 10,000 stainless steel casks of spent nuclear pellets throughout 19 expansions phases. The $2.4 billion project will bring 300-plus construction, security and manufacturing jobs to the region.
But the project has faced stiff partisan opposition from Democrats.
Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham reiterated her steadfast opposition in a joint statement Tuesday with state Attorney General Raúl Torrez. It’s not entirely clear why the state’s top cop is weighing in on an energy issue that has followed laws and procedures.
Lujan Grisham and Torrez made reference to Senate Bill 53, legislation passed by Democrats in the 2023 session, that prohibits any state or local government from granting permits for a nuclear-waste disposal project unless the state consents.
“In the meantime, we are evaluating available legal recourse and will take any action necessary to make sure that ground is never broken on this ‘interim’ facility in New Mexico,” the governor and AG said.
Holtec, which has invested $80 million during the NRC application process, will likely challenge SB 53 in federal court, and will likely win. Federal agencies, not the state, are empowered to regulate nuclear safety. SB 53 is a back-door law intended to strangle Holtec by preventing it from acquiring permits for such things as construction and industrial wastewater.
Sen. Martin Heinrich said in a separate statement Tuesday no regulatory commission “should be using interim standards to approve indefinite storage” until there is a permanent repository for spent nuclear fuel. Fair point. But Heinrich, the rest of the state’s delegation, the governor and the AG conveniently do not mention the U.S. lacks a permanent storage site because their fellow Democrat, the late Sen. Harry Reid, blocked the truly permanent storage site in Yucca Mountain after Congress quite literally sank $15 billion of taxpayer money into what is now the most expensive, empty parking garage in America. So there is nowhere to transfer more than 70,000 metric tons of used reactor fuel from commercial power plants at 73 sites across 39 states — even though U.S. law requires one. How about enforcing that law?
Heinrich ended his statement: “New Mexicans didn’t sign up for this.”
Except many have. Give Carlsbad Mayor Dale Janway or Hobbs Mayor Sam Cobb a call. They’ll fill you in on the Eddy-Lea Energy Alliance that southeastern New Mexico leaders formed in 2006 and the thousand acres of remote cattle grazing land ELEA bought expressly for Holtec between Carlsbad and Hobbs. And then there are the nuclear experts who work in our three national labs and at WIPP and Urenco.
It’s time for state leaders to put their politics aside, recognize the science and the scary fact we have spent nuclear waste sitting on water tables across the country, and support the bridge carbon-neutral nuclear power offers. And it’s time for our delegation in D.C. to move beyond cheap partisan sound bites and actually do something about safely storing nuclear waste.
This editorial first appeared in the Albuquerque Journal. It was written by members of the editorial board and is unsigned as it represents the opinion of the newspaper rather than the writers.
