Overview

THE FACTS
  Re-licensing
   Security
   Radioactive Waste
   Structural Issues
   Health
   Environment
   Emissions
   Monitoring
   Emergency Planning
   Oversight
   Economics
   Energy Alternatives

   Contact

The San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace, joined by the Sierra Club and Peg Pinard, have filed a Petition with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
 
This Petition asks that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission be ordered to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement on the environmental impacts of terrorism or other act of malice or insanity against the proposed nuclear fuel storage facility to grant the petitioners a hearing on what additional security measures for the ISFSI and the associated nuclear power plant, in addition to compliance with the NRC's pre-9/11 security regulations, should be required to ensure that the proposed licensing of the nuclear fuel storage facility did not pose an undue security threat.

Read the full text of the brief http://www.mothersforpeace.org/

Attorney General Lockyer Files Brief Challenging Federal Refusal To Account For Potential Terrorist Attack On Proposed PG&E Nuclear Facility
 

(SAN FRANCISCO) – Attorney General Bill Lockyer today filed a friend-of-the court brief in the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals opposing the Bush Administration’s refusal to consider the environmental effects of a potential terrorist attack on a nuclear storage facility proposed by Pacific Gas & Electric Co.

“The position adopted in this case by the Bush Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is more than illegal,” said Lockyer. “It’s ludicrous, contrary to the President’s public statements, and hazardous to the health of California’s residents and environment. This Administration, and this President, constantly remind us of the terrorist threat. And yet, in this case, they say the danger is so remote they can deny Californians their right to know the environmental effects of a terrorist attack on a nuclear facility.”

The case – San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 03-74628 – involves PG&E’s proposal to expand the spent nuclear fuel storage facilities at its Diablo Canyon power plant. Specifically, PG&E wants to build and operate an above-ground Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI).

On January 23, 2003, the NRC unanimously ruled it did not have to address potential terrorism in its environmental assessment of the facility. In making the decision, the NRC concluded the possibility of a terrorist attack “is speculative and simply too far removed from the natural or expected consequences of agency action” to require a study under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

Lockyer’s brief – filed on behalf of the people of California and joined by Massachusetts, Utah and Washington – challenges that position, using blunt language and the Bush Administration’s own statements and actions.

The NRC’s position, the brief states, “defies logic, and is inconsistent with statements made and activities undertaken subsequent to September 11, 2001 by the President, the members of the Cabinet and the NRC itself.” Some examples:

● President Bush, in his State of the Union Address on January 9, 2002, told the American people U.S. intelligence agencies had found “diagrams of nuclear power plants” at Al-Qaeda bases in Afghanistan.

● The NRC on January 23, 2002 warned nuclear power plant operators of the potential for terrorists to crash a hijacked jetliner into a facility.

● The U.S. Department of Homeland Security said on May 14, 2002, “We know that Al-Qaeda has been gathering information and looking at nuclear facilities and other critical infrastructure as potential targets.”

● On May 24, 2002, the NRC reported the nation’s nuclear power plants had been placed on heightened alert due to information obtained by intelligence agencies.

● The FBI on October 24, 2002 issued a “Threat Communication” that warned Al-Qaeda detainees had indicated attacks on the U.S. petroleum industry planned by the group “may be part of more extensive operations against ... energy-related targets, including oil facilities and nuclear power plants.”

The brief notes the NRC also contends PG&E’s project is exempt from review under NEPA because a terrorist attack on a nuclear facility is a worst-case scenario. “This assertion, again, ignores statements made by senior government officials that serious terrorist attacks on the United States are inevitable, that nuclear power plants are potential targets for attack, and that attacks on American nuclear power plants have already been planned,” the brief states.

The Bush Administration, the brief adds, has made clear its belief that “terrorist attacks, like earthquakes, will occur – the only question is whether ‘ground zero’ will be a nuclear power plant.”

Lockyer’s brief asks the court to find that the NRC’s decision to not follow NEPA was “arbitrary and capricious.” It further asks the court to order the NRC to assess the environmental effects of a terrorist attack on the proposed facility, and to conduct public hearings as part of that process.

“The NRC seems uninterested in hearing what anyone besides its own staff and, presumably, PG&E might have to say regarding the vulnerability of the proposed ISFSI to terrorist attack,” said Lockyer. “We filed this brief to vindicate California citizens’ right under NEPA to participate in federal agency decisions that may significantly affect our public safety and health, and our environment.”

Read the full text of the brief http://www.mothersforpeace.org/

NRC CLAIMS TERRORISM TOO “SPECULATIVE” FOR INCLUSION IN ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSES

NCI CONDEMNS ABSURD NRC RULINGS - Nuclear Control Institute Press Release  http://www.nci.org/

         Washington--- The Nuclear Control Institute (NCI) today condemned four rulings issued on Wednesday by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) that hold that the NRC is not obligated to evaluate the environmental impacts of terrorist attacks in reviews required under federal law by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).  NRC based its decision on its opinion that "the possibility of a terrorist attack ... is speculative and simply too far removed from the ... consequences of agency action to require a study under NEPA." 

“NRC’s ruling that the risk of terrorist attack is ‘speculative’ is completely absurd in the post September-11 era,” according to Dr. Edwin Lyman, president of NCI, a non-proliferation research and advocacy center.  “For a government agency to make such a statement in today's elevated threat environment is irresponsible and dangerous.”

The NRC decisions issued yesterday apply to licensing proceedings involving five operating reactors and two proposed nuclear facilities, including applications for constructing a plutonium (MOX) fuel fabrication plant at the Savannah River Site and for extending the licenses of four nuclear power plants that plan to use the MOX fuel at Duke Power’s Catawba and McGuire sites.  The Commission overturned an earlier decision by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board panel in the MOX fuel plant case that terrorist acts in the post September 11-era must be considered "reasonably foreseeable" under NEPA and therefore should be evaluated in an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). 

“These NRC decisions set a terrible precedent,” Dr. Lyman warned.  “One of the greatest dangers we face today is that many nuclear facilities are located near heavily populated urban areas and could cause environmental catastrophes if attacked by terrorists.  NRC has no excuse after the September 11 attacks to ignore the potentially devastating environmental and public health impacts of terrorist attacks when making decisions under NEPA about designing, siting or modifying hazardous facilities.”

NRC's rulings are riddled with internal inconsistencies that make them likely to be overturned on appeal.  For example, NRC states in the Utah Private Fuel Storage (PFS) decision that "we have no means to assess, usefully, the risks of terrorism at the PFS facility.”  However, on the next page, NRC argues that "if we were to speculate on the probability of the scenario ... [of] a hijacked jumbo jet hitting the PFS facility and causing catastrophic effects --- our guess is that the probability is actually miniscule" because of the enhanced security measures put into place at airports.

"NRC is judging the vulnerability of the PFS facility to terrorism while at the same time saying such judgments are impossible," Dr. Lyman pointed out.  "This is exactly the kind of issue that needs to be analyzed in the NEPA process, with full opportunity for public review and comment."   

         Yesterday’s NRC decisions are available on NCI’s website.

• In the Matter of Duke Cogema Stone & Webster (CLI-02-24) (MOX plant)

• In the Matter of Private Fuel Storage L.L.C. (CLI-02-25) (Utah)

• In the Matter of Duke Energy Corporation (CLI-02-26) (McGuire & Catawba reactors)

In the Matter of Dominion Nuclear Connecticut Inc. (CLI-02-27) (Millstone reactor)

More about relicensing