In my previous post, I discussed recent rule changes at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission with respect to extending the time allowed from 30 years to 60 years for utilities to temporarily store spent nuclear fuel in pools or dry cask storage while a permanent geological repository is sited and developed. The new rules went into effect in January of 2011. In February of 2011 Connecticut, New York and Vermont sued the NRC to repeal the new rule for storage.
The lawsuit filed by the three north-eastern states claims that when the NRC made the rule changes it "acted arbitrarily, abused its discretion, and violated the National Environmental Policy Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, the Atomic Energy Act, the Commission's policies and regulations." The suit was filed on February 14th, 2011 in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
The suit said that the NRC must carry out site-by-site environmental impact statements before extending the storage rules. They are concerned about possible leaks that would threaten the groundwater and environment in their states. They also raised the issue of the cancellation of the Yucca Mountain Repository for permanent waste storage and the failure of the U.S. government to identify and begin development of another site for permanent spent fuel storage.
The attorney general of the state of Connecticut said “The NRC has a mandatory legal duty to provide state and local governments and public with a full and comprehensive analysis of the potential environmental impact of additional decades of storage of high-level nuclear waste.”
The NRC responded that their action was misrepresented by the lawsuit and that they were merely extending the storage period and not changing the rules to allow any plant to store spent nuclear fuel.
On March 11, 2011, New Jersey petitioned the Appeals Court to allow them to join the lawsuit filed by the other three states.
On June 8, 2012, the Appeals Court said that the NRC rule change was “major federal action necessitating either an environmental impact statement or finding of no significant environmental impact” as required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.”
The NRC responded by agreeing to have its staff develop an environmental impact statement, revise the waste confidence finding and issue a new rule on temporary waste storage.
The attorney general of Connecticut said that “This action affirms the position Connecticut and other states have taken for years – that environmental impact needs to be assessed before any decision is made to allow longer storage of spent nuclear fuel at reactor sites. We look forward to working with the NRC in this process.”
Personally, I think that this is a good outcome. There are very real issues with the temporary storage of spent nuclear fuel that need to be addressed before the utility companies are allowed to double their temporary storage period. And the most pressing problem of all that has to be addressed as soon as possible by the U.S. government is the siting and development of permanent spent nuclear fuel storage.
