After being rejected by Texas and Utah, the federal government has now picked New Mexico to house the nation's spent nuclear fuel, but the governor said the state will not be a "dumping ground."

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) announced last week it intends to issue a license to Holtec International, to locate a toxic waste storage facility in Lea County. Holtec has proposed to transport high-level nuclear waste from the East Coast across the country via rail lines to a facility slated for the state's southeast corner.

Don Hancock, nuclear waste program director at the Southwest Research and Information Center, objected to the decision.

"This is a very bad idea," Hancock asserted. "These kinds of waste facilities proposed in Texas and New Mexico and previously Utah, and historically it has been bipartisan Republican and Democratic opposition."

Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham accused the NRC of putting profit over public interest. A bill to prohibit such a facility was introduced in the New Mexico Legislature last year, but failed to move forward. A similar bill passed in Texas. In a statement, Grisham said new legislation would have her full support.

Holtec said the New Mexico operation for nuclear waste would be temporary, but nonetheless seeks a 40-year license with the opportunity for renewal. New Mexico does not have a nuclear power plant within its borders, and Hancock argued the state should not have to solve the nation's nuclear waste problem.

"None of this waste we're talking about is in New Mexico," Hancock emphasized. "If it actually were a good thing, if it were safe, Holtec or anybody else wouldn't be thinking about trying to find someplace else."

Used nuclear fuel is currently housed at more than 75 U.S. locations. Holtec argued consolidation would better secure the radioactive waste from threats. Multiple New Mexico groups including tribal leaders oppose the operations. The NRC's final environmental assessment stated it would have minimal impacts on land, oil and gas, livestock operations and public health.

Today's 80th anniversary of the Trinity nuclear bomb test in New Mexico comes weeks after Congress agreed to include the state in the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act.

The law was first established in 1990 but New Mexicans affected by radiation exposure known as "downwinders" were excluded, while others in Nevada, Utah and Arizona benefited.

Tina Cordova, cofounder of the Tularosa Basin Downwinders Consortium, said the recent action was only a partial victory, because those who qualify must apply and be approved for compensation by the end of 2028.

"We're going to continue to fight for the communities that were left out, we're going to continue to fight for a longer extension, more time," Cordova explained. "Because we firmly believe that two years is not going to be enough for the people of New Mexico that have been waiting 80 years."

A family member can apply on behalf of those who have died but compensation for health care costs cannot exceed $100,000 dollars. More than $2.5 billion in claims have been paid by the federal government since 1990. The expansion also includes downwinders in Colorado, Idaho, Montana and Guam.

Cordova pointed out her group already is working to get people enrolled but complications are expected due to changes in the Medicaid program included in the budget megabill. Based on her health surveys of downwinders the past 16 years, she believes it could be a significant number.

"We do know that they depend on Medicaid to access health care when they become so sick that they can't work any longer," Cordova observed. "It's in many ways very bittersweet for us. We'll take the win, but we're jut so nervous about what it means overall."

The Consortium will unveil a memorial sign Wednesday at the site of the Trinity bomb test, two hours south of Albuquerque. Melissa Parke, 2017 Nobel Peace Prize recipient and executive director of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, will attend, along with other dignitaries.


get more stories like this via email

Environmental groups are voicing concerns about plans to build the nation's first small modular reactors at the Palisades Nuclear Plant in Covert Township, Michigan.

Holtec International said it aims to revive Palisades later this year, after it was decommissioned in 2022, and in five years, install the nation's first small modular reactors. Critics warned the reactors would still produce radioactive waste without long-term disposal solutions and pose accident risks like leaks and meltdowns.

Michael Keegan, research director for the grassroots group Don't Waste Michigan, said about 80 companies are competing to market their small modular reactors, which he argued are not really small nuclear reactors.

"A colleague of mine refers to them as 'small mythical reactors' because they don't exist," Keegan asserted. "They're 'PowerPoint' reactors. It's hyperbole, and they're all chasing Department of Energy money. We're talking billions of dollars."

A $1.5 billion U.S. Department of Energy loan backs the Palisades plant revival, as part of a push to extend the life of aging nuclear reactors to produce low-carbon energy.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has formed a panel to oversee the Palisades' restart for safety compliance. The plant is expected to eventually generate 800 megawatts and power 800,000 homes. Keegan noted anyone who wants to challenge the project must do so under the Administrative Procedures Act.

"We have to go through their administrative law judges," Keegan explained. "We have to go through all those processes, be denied, make an appeal to the NRC commission, be denied, before we can go to a federal court. And we're prepared to do that."

Holtec released a statement, saying in part, its restart project includes "thorough inspections, testing, maintenance, repairs, and upgrades to prepare the plant for a return to long-term operation."


get more stories like this via email

Interest in nuclear energy as a solution to "dirty" sources of power is growing, including a proposal in the Northwest. However, some critics say it could divert attention from more practical renewable energy solutions.

Amazon has signed an agreement with X-energy to build new nuclear technology, known as small modular reactors, to meet the company's growing energy needs. The aim is to build the reactors at the Hanford nuclear site along the Columbia River.

Kelly Campbell, policy director for Columbia Riverkeeper, said companies are looking into nuclear because they want it to be a "magic bullet" for climate change.

"It's a distraction," Campbell asserted. "It's a shiny object that you can say, 'Look over here! We're going to do 'clean' nuclear power.' But it's going to take 15 years at least to build these things, and meanwhile there's still part of the problem of trying to get more energy supply for the data centers and AI needs."

While small modular reactors are seen as an innovative way to provide nuclear energy without having to build large power plants, none has been built in the United States or approved by the federal government. An Oregon-based company called NuScale, at the forefront of small modular reactor design, had its only customer back out last year because of repeated delays in the project.

Campbell pointed out the location of the project Amazon and X-energy are moving forward with is also a concern.

"It's right on the Columbia River and if there's an emergency, if there's an accident with any of these nuclear facilities at Hanford, it would affect all of them," Campbell emphasized. "You may end up in a situation where you're not able to get in and do the things that you need to do in order to protect people from radiation."

After Amazon and Google expressed interest in nuclear to fuel their growing energy needs, the U.S. Department of Energy announced it would invest $900 million in this technology.

Campbell is convinced the money would be better spent on proven technology, like wind and solar.

"When we start spending it on nuclear, which people have called 'the most expensive way to boil water,' then that's an opportunity cost that we're losing, in terms of spending that on things we know will work and are safer, quicker to build and cheaper," Campbell contended.