Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. US Nuclear Regulatory Commissi
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 3882
| 1st Cir. | 2013Background
- Massachusetts petitions for review of NRC orders denying admission of a new contention and relicensing of Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station (May 25, 2012) after Fukushima-related events.
- NEPA requires an environmental impact statement; AEA requires hearings but NRC determined Commonwealth failed procedural requirements for a hearing.
- NRC had two NEPA analyses: site-specific relicensing EIS and generic category 1/2 determinations; some issues were sent to rulemaking rather than adjudication.
- Fukushima (March 2011) prompted NRC Task Force recommendations; three NRC orders (March 12, 2012) addressed core cooling, hardened vents, and spent fuel pool indicators.
- Massachusetts moved to admit a contention claiming new and significant information from Fukushima would affect Spent Fuel Pool and Core Damage analyses; ASLB denied; NRC affirmed.
- The First Circuit denies Massachusetts’s petitions, upholding NRC’s reasoned decisions and timing of relicensing in light of NEPA and AEA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| NEPA supplementation standard | Massachusetts: new Fukushima information requires EIS supplementation. | NRC: no significant new information; record not to be reopened. | denied: NRC did not err; no substantial new impact requiring supplement. |
| Spent fuel pool issues as Category 1 | Massachusetts argues spent fuel pool risks require adjudication or rulemaking. | NRC: issues belong to rulemaking; not unique to Pilgrim. | denied: waiver petition proper; issues referred to rulemaking. |
| Core damage frequency methodology post-Fukushima | Massachusetts claims Fukushima makes core damage risk estimation inaccurate; requires reevaluation. | NRC: already using site-specific PRA; methodology reasonable and timely. | denied: no significant environmental issue warranting reopening. |
| Right to hearing under AEA | Massachusetts asserts NEPA plus AEA entitlement to hearing. | NRC: hearing rights limited by statutory standards and admissibility requirements. | denied: NRC did not abuse hearing standards; AEA rights not violated. |
| Suspension of relicensing pending rulemaking | Massachusetts seeks suspension until rulemaking on Fukushima-derived info is resolved. | NRC balanced factors; suspension not warranted. | denied: NRC acted within discretion; NEPA not require suspension. |
Key Cases Cited
- Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 462 U.S. 87 (U.S. 1983) (NEPA purpose is hard look and process, not outcome)
- Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources Council, 490 U.S. 360 (U.S. 1989) (supplementation governed by significant new information)
- Town of Winthrop v. FAA, 535 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2008) (hard look and supplementation standards; deference to agency)
- Massachusetts v. United States, 522 F.3d 115 (1st Cir. 2008) (NEPA and NRC procedural posture in relicensing)
- Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332 (U.S. 1989) (NEPA does not mandate substantive outcomes)
- Am. Bird Conservancy, Inc. v. FCC, 516 F.3d 1027 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (illustrates NEPA hard look and agency scrutiny)
- Entergy Nuclear Generation Co., not included in official reporter (D.C. Cir. 2012) (contextual NRC proceedings on Task Force orders (cited in opinion))