{"id":9145,"date":"2014-05-27T08:49:52","date_gmt":"2014-05-27T12:49:52","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.l-a-k-e.org\/blog\/?p=9145"},"modified":"2014-05-27T08:54:13","modified_gmt":"2014-05-27T12:54:13","slug":"nrc-nuke-waste-plan-failed-federal-appeal","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.l-a-k-e.org\/blog\/2014\/05\/nrc-nuke-waste-plan-failed-federal-appeal.html","title":{"rendered":"NRC nuke waste plan failed federal appeal"},"content":{"rendered":"

\n
\n<\/a>
\nWhy the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is
\n
\ntrying to get the public’s confidence<\/a> in nuclear waste management:
\nNRC lost an appeal in 2012.
\nSouthern Company’s new nukes at Plant Vogtle scraped by before
\nthis happened, but there’s still no place for nuke waste
\neven from the existing Vogtle 1 and 2 reactors to go.
\nNRC has a revised Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) scheduled to be finished October 2014.<\/p>\n

\nHere’s U.S. DC Circuit Court of Appeals decision
\nNo. 11-1045 NY v. NRC 8 June 2012,
\n
\non the Court’s website<\/a>
\nand
\n
\non NIRS’ website<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\nDavid Erickson and Mark Anstoetter wrote for Lexology 17 August 2012,
\n
\nNRC suspends issuance of nuclear power plant licenses<\/a>,<\/p>\n

\n

\n
\n<\/a>
\nIn response to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision to vacate
\nits rule regarding long-term storage of nuclear waste, New York v.
\nNuclear Regulatory Commission, No. 11-1045 (D.C. Cir. 6\/8\/12), the
\nNuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has agreed to suspend issuance
\nof licenses until it resolves the issues the court identified. In re
\nCalvert Cliffs Nuclear Project, LLC, No. 52-016-COL (NRC 8\/7\/12).
\nGiven the U.S. Department of Energy’s abandonment of the proposed
\nYucca Mountain storage site, the court vacated NRC ‘s determinations
\nthat permanent safe storage for spent nuclear fuel would be
\navailable “when necessary” in the future and that spent
\nfuel could be stored safely beyond a reactor’s life using a spent
\nfuel pool and on- or off-site dry cask systems.\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/a>
\nNRC’s decision to suspend issuance of permits covers more than 20
\npending permit actions. It does not suspend processing of
\napplications for new nuclear plants or renewal licenses for existing
\nplants, but does prevent issuance of a final permit in those matters
\nfor the time being. According to the commission, it is considering
\nall available options to resolve issues of waste confidence and may
\npursue a generic approach or implement site-specific actions
\nrelating to waste confidence. NRC has also confirmed that it will
\nsolicit public comments for any generic determinations, which would
\nbe made in an environmental assessment or an environmental impact
\nstatement. Any case-by-case decisions could be challenged using
\nexisting NRC appeal mechanisms.\n<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\nNRC 7 August 2012,
\n
\nMemorandum and Order CLI-12-16<\/a>,<\/p>\n

\n

\nWe have received a series of substantively identical petitions to
\nsuspend final licensing decisions, and requesting additional related
\nrelief, in the captioned matters.1<\/sup><\/small> As
\ndiscussed below, we grant the requests in part and deny the requests
\nin part.\n<\/p>\n

1<\/sup><\/small>
\nSee, e.g., Petition to Suspend Final Decisions in All Pending
\nReactor Licensing Proceedings Pending Completion of Remanded Waste
\nConfidence Proceedings (June 18, 2012) (Petition). In addition,
\nFriends of the Earth, and Eric Epstein, on behalf of Three Mile
\nIsland Alert, Inc., submitted the identical petition to the
\nCommission, without identifying a particular docket. For
\nconvenience, page references in today’s decision correspond to the
\nPetition filed by Mindy Goldstein of the Turner Environmental Law
\nClinic, in the Turkey Point combined license (COL) matter. In
\nresponse to the June 19, 2012, Order of the Secretary, we received
\nanswers from the NRC Staff, the applicants in all captioned matters,
\nand a letter from the Nuclear Energy Institute (seeking to
\nparticipate as amicus curiae). As we did in the Callaway matter, we
\nconsider the petitions, and take action, as an exercise of our
\ninherent supervisory authority over agency proceedings. We need not,
\ntherefore, address procedural issues that would merit further
\nconsideration in adjudications. See Union Electric Co. d\/b\/a Ameren
\nMissouri (Callaway Plant, Unit 2), CLI-11-5, 74 NRC __, __ (Sept. 9,
\n2011) (slip op. at 18-19 & n.65).<\/p>\n

\nRecently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
\nCircuit found that the NRC had violated the National Environmental
\nPolicy Act (NEPA) in issuing its 2010 update to the Waste Confidence
\nDecision and accompanying Temporary Storage
\nRule.2<\/sup><\/small> The court vacated both the Decision
\nand the Rule, and remanded the case for further proceedings
\nconsistent with the court’s opinion.3<\/sup><\/small> In
\nresponse to the court’s decision, the petitioners request that we:
\n(1) suspend final licensing decisions in reactor licensing cases,
\npending the completion of our action on the remanded Waste
\nConfidence proceeding; (2) provide an opportunity for public comment
\non any generic determinations that we may make in either an
\nenvironmental assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement
\n(EIS); and (3) provide at least sixty days to seek consideration in
\nindividual licensing cases of any site-specific concerns relating to
\nthe remanded proceedings.4<\/sup><\/small>\n<\/p>\n

2<\/sup><\/small>
\nNew York v. NRC, 681 F.3d 471 (D.C. Cir. 2012). See generally Final
\nRule, Consideration of Environmental Impacts of Temporary Storage of
\nSpent Fuel After Cessation of Reactor Operation, 75 Fed. Reg. 81,032
\n(Dec. 23, 2010); Waste Confidence Decision Update, 75 Fed. Reg.
\n81,037 (Dec. 23, 2010).<\/p>\n

3<\/sup><\/small>
\nIn particular, the court struck down the Waste Confidence Decision’s
\n“Finding 2,” (reasonable assurance exists that
\nsufficient geologic repository capacity will be available for
\ndisposal of highlevel waste and spent nuclear fuel “when
\nnecessary”), and “Finding 4” (reasonable assurance
\nexists that, if necessary, spent fuel can be stored safely without
\nsignificant environmental impacts beyond a reactor’s licensed life
\nfor operation, in a combination of storage in its spent fuel pool
\nand either an onsite or offsite dry cask storage system).<\/p>\n

4<\/sup><\/small>
\nSee Petition at 3-4, 10-12.\n<\/p>\n

\nWaste confidence undergirds certain agency licensing decisions, in
\nparticular new reactor licensing and reactor license
\nrenewal.5<\/sup><\/small> Because of the recent court
\nruling striking down our current waste confidence provisions, we are
\nnow considering all available options for resolving the waste
\nconfidence issue, which could include generic or site-specific NRC
\nactions, or some combination of both. We have not yet determined a
\ncourse of action. But, in recognition of our duties under the law,
\nwe will not issue licenses dependent upon the Waste Confidence
\nDecision or the Temporary Storage Rule until the court’s remand is
\nappropriately addressed.6<\/sup><\/small> This
\ndetermination extends just to final license issuance; all licensing
\nreviews and proceedings should continue to move
\nforward.7<\/sup><\/small>\n<\/p>\n

\nThe petitioners seek assurance that they will be able to participate
\nin future NRC proceedings on waste confidence. We hereby provide
\nthat assurance. The public will be afforded an opportunity to
\ncomment in advance on any generic waste confidence document that the
\nNRC issues on remand—be it a fresh rule, a policy statement,
\nan EA, or an EIS.8<\/sup><\/small>\n<\/p>\n

5<\/sup><\/small>
\nSee 10 C.F.R. \u00a7 51.23(b).<\/p>\n

6<\/sup><\/small>
\nSee NRC Staff’s Answer to Petition to Suspend Final Decisions in all
\nPending Reactor Licensing Proceedings Pending Completion of Remanded
\nWaste Confidence Proceedings (June 25, 2012), at 4 (Staff Answer)
\n(pointing to a number of factors that bear upon consideration of the
\nrequested relief but also stating that no final decision to grant a
\ncombined license, or initial or renewed operating license should be
\nmade “until the NRC has appropriately dispositioned the issues
\nremanded by the court”).<\/p>\n

7<\/sup><\/small>
\nThe petitioners expressly state that they do not seek suspension of
\nongoing adjudications. Petition at 4. Consistent with our ruling in
\nCallaway, we agree that it is in the public interest for
\nadjudications to proceed, except for contentions associated with
\nwaste confidence issues, as discussed infra. See Callaway, CLI-11-5,
\n74 NRC at __ (slip op. at 25-27). Petitioners also expressly state
\nthat they do not seek “any change in the schedules for the NRC
\nStaff’s review of reactor license applications.” Petition at
\n4. Likewise, we see no need for the Staff to change its review
\nschedules other than as may be necessary to address waste confidence
\nissues.<\/p>\n

8<\/sup><\/small>
\nSee Pa’ina Hawaii, LLC, CLI-10-18, 72 NRC 56, 93 (2010). See
\ngenerally 10 C.F.R. \u00a7 51.73 (requiring a comment period for draft
\nEISs and supplemental EISs). See also Staff Answer at 4 & n.4.\n<\/p>\n

\nTo the extent that the NRC takes action with respect to waste
\nconfidence on a case-bycase basis, litigants can challenge such
\nsite-specific agency actions in our adjudicatory
\nprocess.9<\/sup><\/small> In this vein, we and the boards
\nare now in receipt of a number of new contentions and associated
\nfilings concerning waste confidence.10<\/sup><\/small>\n<\/p>\n

9<\/sup><\/small>
\nBut see Potomac Electric Power Co. (Douglas Point Nuclear Generating
\nStation, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-218, 8 AEC 79, 85 (1974)
\n(“[L]icensing boards should not accept in individual license
\nproceedings contentions which are (or are about to become) the
\nsubject of general rulemaking by the Commission.”).<\/p>\n

10<\/sup><\/small>
\nSee Intervenors’ Motion for Leave to File a New Contention
\nConcerning Temporary Storage and Ultimate Disposal of Nuclear Waste
\nat Proposed Fermi 3 Nuclear Power Plant (July 9, 2012); Motion to
\nReopen the Record for William States Lee III Units 1 and 2, together
\nwith Intervenors’ Motion for Leave to File a New Contention
\nConcerning Temporary Storage and Ultimate Disposal of Nuclear Waste
\nat William States Lee III Units 1 and 2 (dated July 9, 2012, filed
\nJuly 10, 2012 (additional declarations filed July 11, 2012); Beyond
\nNuclear Motion for Leave to File a New Contention Concerning
\nTemporary Storage and Ultimate Disposal of Nuclear Waste at Grand
\nGulf Unit 1 (July 9, 2012); Beyond Nuclear Motion for Leave to File
\na New Contention Concerning Temporary Storage and Ultimate Disposal
\nof Nuclear Waste at Grand Gulf Unit 3 (July 9, 2012); Intervenors’
\nMotion for Leave to File a New Contention Concerning Temporary
\nStorage and Ultimate Disposal of Nuclear Waste at Davis-Besse
\nNuclear Power Station (July 9, 2012); Intervenors’ Motion for Leave
\nto File a New Contention Concerning Temporary Storage and Ultimate
\nDisposal of Nuclear Waste at Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plant (July
\n9, 2012); Citizens Allied for Safe Energy, Inc. Motion for Leave to
\nFile a New Contention Concerning Temporary Storage and Ultimate
\nDisposal of Nuclear Waste at Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plant (dated
\nJuly 9, 2012, filed July 10, 2012); Intervenors’ Motion for Leave to
\nFile a New Contention Concerning Temporary Storage and Ultimate
\nDisposal of Nuclear Waste at Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant (July
\n9, 2012); Intervenors’ Motion for Leave to File a New Contention
\nConcerning Temporary Storage and Ultimate Disposal of Nuclear Waste
\nat Seabrook Station, Unit 1 (July 9, 2012); San Luis Obispo Mothers
\nfor Peace Motion for Leave to File a New Contention Concerning
\nTemporary Storage and Ultimate Disposal of Spent Reactor Fuel at
\nDiablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant (July 9, 2012); NC WARN’s Motion
\nto Reopen the Record and Admit Contention Concerning Temporary
\nStorage and Ultimate Disposal of Nuclear Waste at the Shearon Harris
\nNuclear Power Plant (July 9, 2012); Intervenors’ Motion for Leave to
\nFile a New Contention Concerning Temporary Storage and Ultimate
\nDisposal of Spent Reactor Fuel at Levy Nuclear Power Plant (July 9,
\n2012); Petition for Intervention to File a New Contention Concerning
\nTemporary Storage and Ultimate Disposal of Nuclear Waste at STP
\nUnits 1 & 2 (July 9, 2012); Intervenors’ Motion for Leave to File a
\nNew Contention Concerning Temporary Storage and Ultimate Disposal of
\nNuclear Waste at South Texas Units 3 & 4 (July 9, 2012);
\nIntervenors’ Motion for Leave to File a New Contention Concerning
\nTemporary Storage and Ultimate Disposal of Nuclear Waste at
\nBellefonte (July 9, 2012); Southern Alliance for Clean Energy’s
\nMotion for Leave to File a New Contention Concerning Temporary
\nStorage and Ultimate Disposal of Spent Reactor Fuel at Watts Bar
\nUnit 2 (July 9, 2012); Intervenor’s Motion for Leave to File a New
\nContention Concerning Temporary Storage and Ultimate Disposal of
\nNuclear Waste at Callaway Nuclear Power Plant (July 9, 2012); Motion
\nto Reopen the Record for North Anna Unit 3, together with
\nIntervenors’ Motion for Leave to File a New Contention Concerning
\nTemporary Storage and Ultimate Disposal of Nuclear Waste at North
\nAnna Unit 3 (dated July 9, 2012, filed July 10, 2012).<\/p>\n

\nThe Petition
\nwas not filed in the Indian Point, Victoria County, or Limerick
\ndockets. We have, however, received new contentions in those ongoing
\nadjudications. See Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.’s Motion for
\nLeave to Add a New Contention Based Upon New Information and
\nPetition to Add New Contention (July 9, 2012); State of New York,
\nRiverkeeper, and Clearwater’s Joint Motion for Leave to File a New
\nContention Concerning the On-Site Storage of Nuclear Waste at Indian
\nPoint, together with State of New York, Riverkeeper, Inc., and
\nHudson River Sloop Clearwater’s Joint Contention
\nNYS-39\/RK-EC-9\/CW-EC-10 Concerning the On-Site Storage of Nuclear
\nWaste at Indian Point (July 8, 2012); Texans for a Sound Energy
\nPolicy’s Motion to Reinstate Contentions TSEP-ENV-17 and
\nTSEP-ENV-18, or in the Alternative for Leave to File a New
\nContention (July 9, 2012, amended July 10, 2012); Joint Motion to
\nDismiss Texans for a Sound Energy Policy’s Motion to Reinstate
\nContentions and for Leave to File a New Contention, and to Establish
\na Schedule for Future Submissions (July 13, 2012); NRDC’s Motion for
\nLeave to File a New Contention Concerning Temporary Storage and
\nUltimate Disposal of Nuclear Waste at Limerick, together with NRDC’s
\nWaste Confidence Contention (July 9, 2012, errata filed July 9 and
\n10, 2012). These three cases have been added to the caption of this
\ndecision for the purpose of providing guidance on all new
\ncontentions that have been filed on this topic. Three licensing
\nboards have issued case management orders relating to the new
\ncontentions. See Order (Extending Time to Answer Motion to Admit New
\nContention) (July 26, 2012) (unpublished) (Callaway license
\nrenewal); Order (Granting Joint Motion to Dismiss and Setting
\nSchedule) (July 24, 2012) (unpublished) (Victoria County early site
\npermit); Order (Extending Time to Answer Motion to Admit New
\nContention) (July 17, 2012) (unpublished) (Bellefonte COL).\n<\/p>\n

\nIn view of the special circumstances of this case, as an exercise of
\nour inherent supervisory authority over adjudications, we direct
\nthat these contentions—and any related contentions that may be
\nfiled in the near term—be held in abeyance pending our further
\norder.11<\/sup><\/small>\n<\/p>\n

11<\/sup><\/small>
\nShould we determine at a future time that case-specific challenges
\nare appropriate for consideration, our normal procedural rules will
\napply. See Callaway, CLI-11-5, 74 NRC at __ (slip op. at 32-36).<\/p>\n

\nIT IS SO ORDERED.\n<\/p>\n

\nFor the Commission\n<\/p>\n

\nNRC SEAL\n<\/p>\n

\nDated at Rockville, Maryland,
\n
\nthis 7th day of August,2012<\/sup><\/small>\n<\/p>\n

\n\/RA\/<\/p>\n

\n

Annette L. Vietti-Cook
\n
\nSecretary of the Commission\n<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\n -jsq<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Why the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is trying to get the public’s confidence in nuclear waste management: NRC lost an appeal in 2012. Southern Company’s new nukes at Plant Vogtle scraped by before this happened, but there’s still no place for nuke waste even from the existing Vogtle 1 and 2 reactors to go. NRC […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[18,104,478],"tags":[8701,8708,8702,12,7,117,8737,107,8772,108,6,421],"class_list":["post-9145","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-georgia-power","category-nuclear","category-solid-waste","tag-georgia","tag-georgia-power","tag-lake","tag-lowndes-area-knowledge-exchange","tag-lowndes-county","tag-nrc","tag-nuclear","tag-plant-vogtle","tag-solid-waste","tag-southern-company","tag-valdosta","tag-waste"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.l-a-k-e.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9145","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.l-a-k-e.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.l-a-k-e.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.l-a-k-e.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.l-a-k-e.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=9145"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"http:\/\/www.l-a-k-e.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9145\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":9149,"href":"http:\/\/www.l-a-k-e.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9145\/revisions\/9149"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.l-a-k-e.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9145"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.l-a-k-e.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9145"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.l-a-k-e.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9145"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}