Part 2 of 2 Parts (Please read Part 1 first)      
       A temporary storage site was proposed for Bull Creek, Utah around the year 2000. In a lawsuit filed in 2003, Utah argued that when the Yucca Mountain site was selected, the authority of the NRC to designate temporary storage sites was ended under the terms of the NWPA.  The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia was sympathetic to the environmental and safety concerns of Utah, but it confirmed that the federal government has the final say about nuclear storage facility siting.
       After the first Bull Creek decision, the Court of Appeals in the 10th Circuit issued an opinion in the Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians v. Nielson case that also involved the Bull Creek site. Utah argued that the state’s constitution clearly stated that any nuclear facility should be regulated by the Utah Department of Environmental Quality. In addition, state law called for the counties to have oversite of facilities and rail transportation of nuclear waste. The decision issue by the Court of Appeals in the 10th Circuit affirmed the first Bull bCreek decision that the federal government had the final word with respect to the siting of nuclear waste facilities.
        The decision read, “In holding the Utah statutes preempted, we do not denigrate the serious concerns of Utah’s citizens and lawmakers regarding spent nuclear fuel, a matter with presents complex technological, economic and political challenges to those seeking effective solutions. However, in the matter of nuclear safety, Congress has determined that it is the federal government, not the states that must address the problem.”
         The N.M. A.G. said that the state would have “some recourse” if NRC regulations were violated at the facility or the facility failed after it began operation. While the site is in operation, Holtec would have the sole responsibility for the dry casks which would store the spent nuclear fuel thirty feet underground. While there is no NRC regulation or judicial precedent with respect to the possible storage of spent nuclear fuel in dry casks past their licensed life span, Holtec alone is responsible for safe operation of the site. NRC regulations do specifically require that a decommissioning plan and funding be part of license requirements for any temporary storage site. This would appear to prevent spent nuclear fuel from being stored at a
site permanently.
        The A.G. wrote, “Because interim storage facilities are not intended to be permanent repositories for nuclear waste, NRC regulations provide that all applications for a license to operate an interim storage facility must include a plan for the future decommissioning.”
         During the licensed period, the licensee has to periodically update decommissioning plans and estimates of cost. The licensee of a site must submit final decommissioning plans when a temporary site ends operations. The A.G. wrote, “The NRC’s licensing and regulatory requirements should provide some assurance that Holtec would be unable to simply abandon the site, given the that the NRC requires financial assurances to cover the cost of decommissioning the site.” Unfortunately, there is no recourse for the state if the federal government fails to create a permanent repository for spent nuclear fuel.
       The A.G. wrote “The simple answer is that federal law does not appear to afford the state any legal recourse. And, as demonstrated by the fact that interim storage facilities are currently licensed and operated in a majority of states, the absence of a permanent facility does not appear to preclude the NRC from issuing licenses for interim storage facilities.” Regardless of how long it takes for the federal government to create a permanent repository, the state of N.M. has no power to speed up the process.

Ambient office  = 99 nanosieverts per hour

Ambient outside = 89 nanosieverts per hour

Soil exposed to rain water = 93 nanosieverts per hour

Crimini mushroom from Central Market = 127 nanosieverts per hour

Tap water = 110 nanosieverts per hour

Filter water = 90 nanosieverts per hour

Part 1 of 2 Parts
      The U.S. does not have a permanent underground repository for spent nuclear fuel. Until such a repository is constructed, there is a need for temporary storage of spent fuel. The search is on for temporary sites but can encounter resistance from local citizens and politicians.
       Holtec International has proposed a temporary repository for up to one hundred thousand metric tons of spent nuclear fuel rods at a site near the Eddy-Lea county line in New Mexico. The repository is scheduled to begin accepting shipments of spent nuclear fuel in 2022. Holtec applied to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for a license in 2017. The application was officially accepted in 2018 which began a public feedback process that will include an NRC environmental impact statement. If all requirements are satisfied, a federal license for Holtec will be the result.
       Both houses of the New Mexico legislature have collaborated in the creation of the N.M. Radioactive and Hazarrdous Materials Committed. State Senator Jeff Steinborn is the Chair of the Committee. He sent a list of fifty-seven questions to various state departments last months. Most of those departments forwarded the questions to the NRC.
       In mid-July, the Attorney General of New Mexico (A.G.) responded to six of the questions posed by Steinborn. In answer to one question, the A.G. said that the federal government alone can regulate such sites before they go into operation. States can only “indirectly” regulate such sites once they are in operation. He said, “While it is abundantly clear that the state cannot license or otherwise directly regulate interim storage facilities, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that state tort law can provide a remedy for injuries suffered as a result of nuclear plant operation.”
       Most nuclear activities in the U.S. are regulated by two federal laws: The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA) and the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (AEA). The NWPA directed the Department of Energy to create a permanent geological repository for nuclear waste including spent nuclear fuel. The NWPA was amended in 2008 to direct the DoE to construct a repository for spent nuclear fuel under Yucca Mountain in Nevada. The project was halted in 2009 because of opposition from Nevada state lawmakers and because of budget cuts by the Obama administration. In 2010, the DoE cancelled its application for the site. Recently, the Trump administration has called for resuming the project at Yucca Mountain.
      In the meantime, the NRC does have the authority to license “privately-owned, away-from-reactor” storage facilities to hold spent nuclear fuel temporarily before a permanent repository is constructed. Opposition from states chosen by the NRC for temporary spent fuel storage cannot overrule this NRC authority. 
Please read Part 2

Ambient office  = 88 nanosieverts per hour

Ambient outside = 105 nanosieverts per hour

Soil exposed to rain water = 107 nanosieverts per hour

Carrot from Central Market = 116 nanosieverts per hour

Tap water = 119 nanosieverts per hour

Filter water = 114 nanosieverts per hour

Part 2 of 2 Parts (Please read Part 1 first)
      At this time there is only one nuclear power plant being constructed in the U.S. in the state of Georgia. It is now estimated that it will cost twenty-five billion dollars to complete and it had to be supported by twelve billion dollars in federal loan guarantees. The Georgia Public Service Commission stated that even a delay of a few months could raise the cost so much that the project might have to be abandoned.
      The problem with the rising cost of nuclear power is not confined to the U.S. In Britain, the Hinkley Point C power plant is the first new nuclear power plant to be constructed there in more than twenty years. The original cost projects of sixteen billion dollars has risen by more than fifty percent to twenty-six billion dollars.
       France has been getting more than seventy-five percent of its electricity from nuclear power for years. Even with all their experience in nuclear power, they are unable to construct a next generation nuclear power plant at a reasonable cost and on schedule.
        EDF is the French owned nuclear utility. They have just announced that there will be another schedule delay and additional costs in the construction of their first European Pressurized Reactor. The original estimated cost was about four billion dollars. The latest estimate is twelve and three quarter billion dollars. This is more than three times the original estimate.
        There were discussions in South Africa about the need for nuclear power. Secret conversations with Russia about building a nuclear power plant were revealed and caused a scandal. The critics of nuclear power in S.A. say that it is not needed and is far too expensive. Other African countries are been courted by the Russian nuclear company, Rosatom but, once again, there are critics who point out that the costs are too high, the demand is too low and infrastructure is lacking to make it practical to turn to nuclear power.
       Vietnam and Russia were discussing the construction of a nuclear power plant in Vietnam by Rosatom. It would utilize something that the Russians call the Build-Own-Operate model. The basic concept here would be to have Rosatom construct, staff, and fuel the new plant. Russia would own it and would deal with removal of spent fuel. There would also be a massive loan from Russian banks for construction with the money going to Rosatom, of course. The Vietnamese decided against the project and it was cancelled.
       All over the world, the use of nuclear power in developed nations has been declining except for Russia and China who are actively building reactors for internal power generation and export to other nations. The focus of their sales efforts have largely been on the developing world. Massive amounts of money, international status and possible nuclear weapon development are supporting the international nuclear power market. Problems with governmental corruption, incompetence, and possibilities for the proliferation of nuclear weapons are strong reasons for the developing world to reject nuclear power.
       In the end, it will be economics that will destroy nuclear power. Hopefully, the reality that nuclear power is too expensive and dangerous will sink in and the world’s infatuation with nuclear power will end.

Ambient office  = 116 nanosieverts per hour

Ambient outside = 79 nanosieverts per hour

Soil exposed to rain water = 78 nanosieverts per hour

Orange bell pepper from Central Market = 171 nanosieverts per hour

Tap water = 102 nanosieverts per hour

Filter water = 94 nanosieverts per hour