A federal court heard oral arguments Monday concerning the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s handling of environmental assessment of continued waste storage at U.S. nuclear plants.
At question is whether NRC has given “a hard look” to the risks associated with spent fuel fires and spent fuel pool leaks in its continued storage rule, formerly known as the waste confidence rule. The commission amended the rule in 2010, extending the length of time assumed to be safe for storage of spent fuel at reactor sites from 30 to 60 years. Two years later the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals found the rule to be deficient and requested an updated version. The NRC was told to consider that the U.S. might never site a permanent repository for nuclear waste, which is the reason material has been accumulating at American power plants since the 1980s.
Arguing for the state of New York before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, attorney Andrew Amend claimed the “one-size-fits-all” generic environmental impact statement (GEIS) that NRC included in the new rule can’t possibly be applied to plants such as Indian Point in New York, where environmentalists have raised concerns about the site’s impact on the Hudson River. The GEIS examines potential environmental impacts resulting from the issuance or renewal of nuclear power plant operating licenses. He argued that New York’s dense population presents a unique set of circumstances, concerning evacuation and mitigation, that NRC’s GEIS doesn’t account for, which violates the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). He and his fellow petitioners requested that the court vacate the entire rule and remand it back to the commission for further changes.
“NRC has a critical regulatory duty that this court found unfulfilled four years ago and that remains unfulfilled today,” Amend said. “That duty is to take a hard look at the environmental impacts of allowing storage of extremely toxic spent nuclear fuel produced by more than a hundred reactors around the country to be stored on site indefinitely. … One size clearly doesn’t fit all, and NRC knows that.”
He added that a drinking water reservoir is 6 miles away and directly downwind from Indian Point. New York can’t be accounted for by multiplying generic characteristics, such as population, that are included in the GEIS, according to the attorney.
NRC Solicitor Andrew Averbach said New York and the other petitioners, which include the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Nuclear Energy Institute, fail to recognize context in their argument. The GEIS spans more than 1,000 pages, he said, and represents the agency’s more than two-year effort to address the rule. More importantly, he argued, it doesn’t prevent NRC from considering all the concerns petitioners raise in license review and renewal. Furthermore, the GEIS thoroughly addressed issues such as fires, leaks, and national repository failure, he said.
“Yes the agency considers the (GEIS), which is two volumes, but then it also considers a host of additional environmental considerations each time it issues a license,” Averbach said. “There’s no obligation to (license a plant) simply because it’s generically identified these impacts. Rather the agency has reasonably concluded that the appropriate time to consider the impacts, the appropriate time to consider mitigation and alternatives is when it decides to issue a license.”
In response to the 2012 court ruling, NRC suspended issuing licenses and renewals until the new rule was implemented in 2014. The court will deliver an opinion on the case at a later date.
The GEIS analyzes the impact of storing spent fuel beyond the licensed operating life of reactors over 60 years, 160 years, and indefinitely. Matters examined include land use, air and water quality, and historic and cultural resources. It also contains the NRC’s analysis of spent fuel pool leaks and fires in response to the Appeals Court remand. The final continued storage rule and GEIS were issued in September 2014, lifting the suspension on issuing new licenses and renewals. The NRC has said the rule name change more accurately reflects “the nature and content of the rule.”