Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
405 U.S. App. D.C. 1
| D.C. Cir. | 2013Background
- The NRC approved Vogtle Units 3 and 4 licenses and Westinghouse AP1000 design changes under 10 C.F.R. Part 52.
- Petitioners challenged NRC procedures, NEPA compliance, and alleged failure to consider Fukushima-related information after the Task Force report.
- NRC concluded Task Force findings did not constitute new and significant information mandating a supplemental EIS or reopening the record.
- The AP1000 design certification amendment was issued with an Environmental Assessment that found no further Severe Accident Mitigation Design Alternatives necessary.
- A mandatory NRC hearing occurred focusing on staff adequacy, with petitioners barred from participation in that uncontested portion.
- The DC Circuit denied petitions for review, holding NRC reasonably applied its contentions rules and did not need to supplement EIS or EA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether NRC properly refused to admit petitioners' contentions. | Luminant argues Task Force info creates new and significant environmental issues. | NRC held Task Force alone not new and significant; contentions lacked specificity linking to Vogtle. | NRC reasonably denied the contentions. |
| Whether petitioners could participate in the mandatory hearing on Vogtle. | Petitioners claim right to participate in all NRC hearings. | Mandatory hearing limited to applicant and NRC staff; petitioners had no right to participate. | Petitioners were not entitled to participate. |
| Whether NRC acted reasonably in approving the AP1000 design amendment without a supplemental EA. | AP1000 changes require reevaluation of environmental effects under NEPA. | Existing EA already evaluated severe-accident alternatives; no supplemental EA needed. | NRC reasonably declined to supplement EA. |
Key Cases Cited
- Union of Concerned Scientists v. NRC, 920 F.2d 50 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (contention-admissibility standards under §2.309)
- Marsh v. Oregon Nat. Res. Council, 490 U.S. 360 (U.S. 1989) (NEPA hard-look duty; need for supplemental EIS emphasis)
- Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. v. NRDC, 462 U.S. 87 (U.S. 1983) (deference to agency technical judgments)
- Massachusetts v. NRC, 708 F.3d 63 (1st Cir. 2013) (prematurity; generic NEPA review standards)
- Great Old Broads for Wilderness v. Kimbell, 709 F.3d 836 (9th Cir. 2013) (arbitrary-and-capricious review of NEPA decisions)