UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

COMMISSIONERS: 

Stephen G. Burns, Chairman 

Kristine L. Svinicki 

William C. Ostendorff 

Jeff Baran 

In the Matter of 

 

DTE ELECTRIC CO. 

(Fermi Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 3) 

Docket No. 52-033-COL 

 

DTE ELECTRIC CO. 

(Fermi Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 2) 

Docket No. 50-341-LR 

 

DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, L.L.C. 

(William States Lee III Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2) 

Docket Nos. 52-018-COL & 

 52-019-COL 

ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. 

(Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3) 

Docket Nos. 50-247-LR & 

 50-286-LR 

FIRSTENERGY NUCLEAR OPERATING CO. 

(Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1) 

Docket No. 50-346-LR 

 

FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO. 

(Turkey Point, Units 6 and 7) 

Docket Nos. 52-040-COL & 

 52-041-COL 

 

LUMINANT GENERATION CO. L.L.C. 

(Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant, Units 3 and 4) 

Docket Nos. 52-034-COL & 

 52-035-COL 

 

NEXTERA ENERGY SEABROOK, L.L.C. 

(Seabrook Station, Unit 1) 

Docket No. 50-443-LR 

 

NUCLEAR INNOVATION NORTH AMERICA, L.L.C. 

(South Texas Project, Units 3 and 4) 

Docket Nos. 52-012-COL & 

 52-013-COL 

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC CO. 

(Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 and 2) 

Docket Nos. 50-275-LR & 

 50-323-LR 
- 2 - 

PROGRESS ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. 

(Levy County Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2) 

Docket Nos. 52-029-COL & 

 52-030-COL 

 

STP NUCLEAR OPERATING CO. 

(South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2) 

Docket Nos. 50-498-LR & 

 50-499-LR 

 

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY 

(Bellefonte Nuclear Power Plant, Units 3 and 4) 

Docket Nos. 52-014-COL & 

 52-015-COL 

 

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY 

(Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2) 

Docket Nos. 50-327-LR & 

 50-328-LR 

 

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY 

(Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 2) 

Docket No. 50-391-OL 

 

UNION ELECTRIC CO. 

(Callaway Plant, Unit 1) 

Docket No. 50-483-LR 

 

VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER CO. 

d/b/a DOMINION VIRGINIA POWER and 

OLD DOMINION ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE 

(North Anna Power Station, Unit 3) 

Docket No. 52-017-COL 

CLI-15-4 

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 

Several environmental organizations in the captioned matters (collectively, Petitioners) 

have requested that we suspend final reactor licensing decisions pending our issuance of a 

“waste confidence safety decision.”1

 Petitioners also have submitted companion filings 

proposing a new or amended waste confidence safety contention, together with related 

 

1 See, e.g., Petition to Suspend Final Decisions in All Pending Reactor Licensing Proceedings 

Pending Issuance of Waste Confidence Safety Findings (Sept. 29, 2014) (errata Oct. 1, 2014; 

amended and corrected petition Oct. 6, 2014) (Petition). Citations to the Petition in today’s 

decision will reference the corrected Petition filed in the Callaway license renewal matter. A full 

list of the filings associated with this decision is set forth in the Appendix. 
- 3 - 

procedural motions to reopen the record in several of the captioned proceedings.2

 For the 

reasons set forth below, we deny the suspension petitions, decline to admit the related 

contention, and deny the motions to reopen. 

Petitioners primarily assert that the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), 

requires the NRC, as a precondition to issuing or renewing operating licenses for nuclear power 

plants, to make definitive findings concerning the technical feasibility of a repository for the 

disposal of spent nuclear fuel. We rejected a nearly identical argument in 1977 and, though 

much of the regulatory framework has changed in the intervening years, our reading of the Act 

has not.3

Our conclusion that a suspension is not warranted finds support not only in our 

interpretation of the Act itself, but also in the regulatory authority that Congress has provided to 

the agency to protect public health and safety. Indeed, our confidence in the safety and 

 

2 See, e.g., Missouri Coalition for the Environment’s Motion for Leave to File a New Contention 

Concerning the Absence of Required Waste Confidence Safety Findings in the Relicensing 

Proceeding at Callaway 1 Nuclear Power Plant (Sept. 29, 2014) (Motion; filed in the Callaway 

license renewal docket). In some proceedings, petitioners also filed motions to reopen the 

record. See, e.g., Motion to Reopen the Record for Callaway Nuclear Power Plant (Sept. 29, 

2014) (Motion to Reopen; filed in the Callaway license renewal docket). Intervenors in the Levy 

County combined license proceeding filed a motion to reopen, but subsequently withdrew their 

motion. See Intervenors’ Unopposed Motion to Withdraw Their Motion to Reopen the Record

(Oct. 2, 2014); Order (Dismissing Environmental Waste Confidence Contention) (Oct. 1, 2014) 

(unpublished). With the withdrawal of this motion, nine motions to reopen remain pending 

before us. In the Indian Point license renewal proceeding, Riverkeeper filed a substantively 

identical suspension petition together with a motion transmitting a new contention a few days 

after the initial suspension petitions were filed. Petition to Suspend Final Decision in Indian 

Point Relicensing Proceeding Pending Issuance of Waste Confidence Safety Findings (Oct. 3, 

2014); Riverkeeper Consolidated Motion for Leave to File a New Contention and New 

Contention RK-10 Concerning the Absence of Required Waste Confidence Safety Findings

(Oct. 3, 2014). 

3 See Natural Resources Defense Council, Denial of Petition for Rulemaking, 42 Fed. Reg. 

34,391, 34,393 (July 5, 1977), aff’d, Natural Res. Def. Council v. NRC, 582 F.2d 166 (2d Cir. 

1978) (NRDC PRM Denial). 
- 4 - 

technical feasibility of systems for the storage and disposal of spent fuel has only increased 

since the late 1970s, as demonstrated by our expanded regulatory scheme and the ongoing 

licensing of such systems, as well as the efforts that are under way—both in the United States 

and abroad—to develop repositories for the disposal of spent fuel. Thus, today we not only 

address Petitioners’ concerns, but we also take the opportunity to confirm the continued validity 

of our determinations regarding the technical feasibility of safe spent fuel storage and ultimate 

disposal in a repository. 

I. BACKGROUND 

Recently, we approved a final rule and generic environmental impact statement, issued 

in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Administrative 

Procedure Act, to address the environmental impacts associated with the storage of spent 

nuclear fuel after the end of a reactor’s license term (the Continued Storage Rule).4

 Following 

the publication of the Continued Storage Rule and supporting generic environmental impact 

statement (Continued Storage GEIS), Petitioners filed substantively identical petitions to 

suspend final licensing decisions, related motions requesting the admission of new—or, in one 

instance, amended—contentions in the captioned matters, and, in several proceedings, motions 

to reopen the proceedings to consider the proposed contentions.5

 

4

 Final Rule, Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel, 79 Fed. Reg. 56,238 (Sept. 19, 2014) 

(Continued Storage Rule); NUREG-2157, Vols. 1 & 2, Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

for Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel (Sept. 2014) (ADAMS accession nos. 

ML14196A105 and ML14196A107) (Continued Storage GEIS). 

5 See, e.g., Petition, Motion, and Motion to Reopen. 
- 5 - 

Exercising our inherent supervisory authority over agency proceedings, we took review 

of the petitions and motions ourselves and set a briefing schedule.6

 All answers oppose the 

suspension petitions and admission of the accompanying contention.7

 Petitioners filed a 

consolidated reply.8

Petitioners claim that we cannot satisfy our statutory responsibilities under the Atomic 

Energy Act and that we no longer have a lawful basis for issuing initial and renewed licenses for 

nuclear power reactors.9

 They assert that we must, therefore, suspend final licensing decisions 

 

6

 CLI-14-9, 80 NRC __ (Oct. 7, 2014) (slip op.). 

7 See, e.g., NRC Staff Consolidated Answer to Petitions to Suspend Final Reactor Licensing 

Decisions, Motions to Admit a New Contention, and Motions to Reopen the Record (Oct. 31, 

2014); Entergy’s Combined Answer to Riverkeeper’s Proposed New Contention RK-10 and 

Petition to Suspend Final License Renewal Decision Pending Issuance of Waste Confidence 

“Safety” Findings (Oct. 31, 2014); Tennessee Valley Authority’s Answer Opposing Petition to 

Suspend Final Decisions in All Pending Reactor Licensing Proceedings Pending Issuance of 

Waste Confidence Safety Findings and Motions for Leave to File New Contention (Oct. 31, 

2014); Tennessee Valley Authority’s Answer to Motion to Reopen the Record for Sequoyah 

Nuclear Power Plant and Motion to Reopen the Record for Bellefonte Nuclear Power Plant (Oct. 

31, 2014) (TVA Answer to Motions to Reopen). 

8 Petitioners’ and Intervenors’ Consolidated Reply to Answers to Petitions to Suspend Final 

Reactor Licensing Decisions, Motions to Admit a New Contention, and Motions to Reopen the 

Record (Nov. 7, 2014) (Reply). In addition, the Nuclear Energy Institute filed an unopposed 

motion for leave to file a brief amicus curiae opposing the Petition. Nuclear Energy Institute, 

Inc.’s Motion for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief (Oct. 31, 2014); Amicus Curiae Brief of the 

Nuclear Energy Institute, Inc. in Response to Suspension Petitions and Waste Confidence 

Safety Contentions (Oct. 31, 2014). Our rule governing amicus curiae participation does not 

contemplate a brief under the current circumstances. See 10 C.F.R. § 2.315(d) (providing for 

amicus filings at our discretion under 10 C.F.R. § 2.341 or sua sponte). We, nonetheless, have 

considered the Nuclear Energy Institute’s views as a matter of discretion. See, e.g., Southern 

California Edison Co. (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3), CLI-13-9, 78 

NRC 551, 556 n.17 (2013). 

9 See, e.g., Motion at 3. 
- 6 - 

unless and until we make a “safety finding” associated with disposal.10 Petitioners ask us to 

admit the following contention: 

The NRC lacks a lawful basis under the Atomic Energy Act ... for 

issuing or renewing an operating license in this proceeding 

because it has not made currently valid findings of confidence or 

reasonable assurance that the hundreds of tons of highly 

radioactive spent fuel that will be generated during any reactor’s 

40-year license term or 20-year license renewal term can be 

safely disposed of in a repository. The NRC must make these 

predictive safety findings in every reactor licensing decision in 

order to fulfill its statutory obligation under the [Act] to protect 

public health and safety from the risks posed by irradiated reactor 

fuel generated during the reactor’s license term.11

Petitioners’ contention, which comes on the heels of our issuance of the Continued 

Storage Rule, relies in large part on the fact that, unlike prior versions of the Rule, the 

Continued Storage Rule is no longer supported by specific “findings” concerning, among other 

things, reasonable assurance of the feasibility of a repository. To provide a more complete 

understanding of the context of Petitioners’ argument, we provide a brief history of our “waste 

confidence” proceedings.12

In 1976, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) filed a petition requesting that 

we conduct rulemaking to determine whether spent fuel “can be generated in nuclear power 

reactors and subsequently disposed of without undue risk to the public health and safety.”13 

NRDC argued that, without this determination, we should refrain from making final decisions on 

 

10 See, e.g., Petition at 8 (unnumbered). 

11 Motion at 3-4 (citations omitted). 

12 A complete history of the prior waste confidence proceedings can be found in Chapter 1 of the 

Continued Storage GEIS. 

13 NRDC PRM Denial, 42 Fed. Reg. at 34,391. 
- 7 - 

“pending or future requests for operating licenses.”14 We denied NRDC’s petition and found 

that, as a matter of statutory interpretation, the Atomic Energy Act did not require us to make the 

requested finding.15 In the denial, we noted the NRC’s obligations with respect to spent fuel 

storage and disposal at the time of a reactor licensing decision. Specifically, we explained that, 

at the time a license is issued, we must “be assured that the wastes generated by licensed 

power reactors can be safely handled and stored as they are generated.”16 As part of the 

reactor licensing process, we noted, an applicant must submit information to allow the NRC to 

“assure that the design provides for safe methods for interim storage of spent nuclear fuel.”17 

Given the focus during the licensing process on the safety of licensed operations, we 

determined that the text of the Atomic Energy Act (combined with Congress’s understanding of 

the state of the development of a repository) did not require us to make, as a precondition to 

licensing, an express determination that spent fuel generated during operation could be 

disposed of safely.18

The denial also included a separate statement of policy.19 In that discussion, which 

Petitioners reference throughout their filings, we stated that we would not continue to license 

 

14 Id. 

15 Id. 

16 Id. Today, this assurance is demonstrated by compliance with our regulations that govern the 

safe storage of spent fuel. See, e.g., Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities, 

10 C.F.R. pt. 50 (2014) and General License for Storage of Spent Fuel at Power Reactor Sites, 

10 C.F.R. pt. 72, subpt. K (2014), which grants a general license to all Part 50 and Part 52 

reactor licensees to store spent fuel in an independent spent fuel storage installation. 

17 NRDC PRM Denial, 42 Fed. Reg. at 34,391. 

18 Id. at 34,391-93. 

19 Id. at 34,393-94. 
- 8 - 

reactors if we “did not have reasonable confidence that ... [spent fuel] can and will in due course 

be disposed of safely.”20 We explained that our “implicit” finding that methods of safe 

permanent storage were available could be “readily distinguished” from the type of safety 

findings that the agency is called upon to make during the course of reactor licensing under the 

Atomic Energy Act and that any finding in this regard “would not have to be a definitive 

conclusion that permanent disposal of high-level wastes can be accomplished safely at the 

present time.”21

NRDC sought judicial review of the petition denial. The Court of Appeals for the Second 

Circuit affirmed the denial and endorsed our conclusion that the Atomic Energy Act does not, as 

a prerequisite to licensing, require a finding of reasonable assurance that “highly hazardous and 

long-lived radioactive materials can be disposed of safely.”22 The court concluded that, by 

seeking to require an express finding concerning safe disposal prior to licensing, “NRDC simply 

reads too much into the [Atomic Energy Act] ... . We are satisfied that Congress did not intend 

such a condition.”23

In addition to recognizing that the text of the Atomic Energy Act does not mandate such 

a specific finding, the court relied on Congress’s decades-long tacit approval of nuclear power 

plant licensing even in the absence of a disposal site.24 Further, the court explained, if NRDC’s 

 

20 Id. at 34,393. 

21 Id. 

22 Natural Res. Def. Council v. NRC, 582 F.2d 166, 168, 171 (2d Cir. 1978). 

23 Id. at 171. 

24 Id. at 173-74. The court found Congress’s silence in the face of ongoing reactor licensing 

“deafening.” Id. at 171.
- 9 - 

view of the Atomic Energy Act were correct, it would be “incredible that AEC and its successor 

NRC would have been violating the [Act] for almost twenty years with no criticism or statutory 

amendment by Congress, which has been kept well informed of [disposal] developments.”25 

Accordingly, the court quoted favorably that it was “fair to read this history as a [d]e facto

acquiescence in and ratification of the Commission's licensing procedure by Congress.”26

The court did not rest its decision solely on the legislative history of the Act or on tacit 

congressional approval of reactor licensing absent safety findings for a repository. “[I]f there 

were any doubt over the intent of Congress” not to require a safety finding on spent fuel 

disposal, explained the court, it was “persuaded that the matter was laid to rest by enactment of 

the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974.”27 The court noted that, in that act, “Congress expressly 

recognized and impliedly approved NRC’s regulatory scheme and practice under which the 

safety of interim storage of [spent fuel] at commercial nuclear power reactor sites has been 

determined separately from the safety of ... permanent storage facilities which have not, as yet, 

been established.”28 Since the passage of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 as well as the 

Second Circuit’s decision in NRDC v. NRC, Congress has had numerous opportunities to 

consider our interpretation of the Atomic Energy Act with respect to a disposal safety finding at 

 

25 Id. 

26 Id. at 172 (quoting Power Reactor Dev. Co. v. Int’l Union of Elec., Radio & Mach. Workers,

367 U.S. 396, 409 (1961)). 

27 Id. at 174 (citations omitted). 

28 Id. The court observed that, in considering passage of the 1974 legislation, Congress heard 

testimony from scientists and other representatives of groups “urg[ing] Congress, 

unsuccessfully, to halt further commercial power plant licensing pending resolution of the waste 

disposal issue.” Id. at 171 n.9, 174-75 (citations omitted). 
- 10 - 

the time of reactor licensing. But in each case, Congress has left intact both this agency’s and 

the court’s interpretation.29

Since 1984, we have completed four rulemaking proceedings that analyzed the 

environmental impacts of the continued storage of spent fuel after the end of a reactor’s license 

term (the “waste confidence” and “continued storage” proceedings).30 The first rulemaking, the 

1984 waste confidence proceeding, was prompted by a remand from the Court of Appeals for 

the District of Columbia Circuit in Minnesota v. NRC.

31 In that case, the petitioners challenged 

the NRC’s approval of amendments to the Prairie Island and Vermont Yankee nuclear power 

plant operating licenses to allow for the use of higher-density spent-fuel-storage racks in the 

reactors’ spent fuel pools.32 The court observed that the Second Circuit had recently ruled in 

NRDC v. NRC that “Congress did not intend in enacting the Atomic Energy Act to require a 

demonstration that nuclear wastes could safely be disposed of before licensing of nuclear plants 

 

29 See, e.g., Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, Pub. L. No. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2201 (1982); 

Energy Policy Act of 2005, Pub. L. 109-58, 119 Stat. 594 (2005). 

30 Final Waste Confidence Decision, 49 Fed. Reg. 34,658 (Aug. 31, 1984) (1984 Waste 

Confidence Decision); Requirements for Licensee Actions Regarding the Disposition of Spent 

Fuel Upon Expiration of Reactor Operating Licenses, 49 Fed. Reg. 34,688 (Aug. 31, 1984) 

(1984 Temporary Storage Rule); Consideration of Environmental Impacts of Temporary Storage 

of Spent Fuel After Cessation of Reactor Operation, 55 Fed. Reg. 38,472 (Sept. 18, 1990) 

(1990 Temporary Storage Rule); Waste Confidence Decision Review, 55 Fed. Reg. 38,474 

(Sept. 18, 1990) (1990 Waste Confidence Decision); Consideration of Environmental Impacts of 

Temporary Storage of Spent Fuel After Cessation of Reactor Operation, 75 Fed. Reg. 81,032 

(Dec. 23, 2010) (2010 Temporary Storage Rule); Waste Confidence Decision Update, 75 Fed. 

Reg. 81,037 (Dec. 23, 2010) (2010 Waste Confidence Decision); Continued Storage GEIS; and 

Continued Storage Rule.

31 Minnesota v. NRC, 602 F.2d 412 (D.C. Cir. 1979). 

32 Id. at 412. 
- 11 - 

was permitted,” and it did not disagree with that result.33 Referring to the language in the policy 

statement accompanying the denial of the petition for rulemaking, the court directed the NRC to 

determine “whether there is reasonable assurance that an off-site storage solution will be 

available by [the end of a reactor’s license term], and if not, whether there is reasonable 

assurance that the fuel can be stored safely at the sites beyond those dates.”34

In 1984, we published our first Waste Confidence Decision and Temporary Storage 

Rule. The Waste Confidence Decision included “findings,” expressed in terms of “reasonable 

assurance,” that, among other things, a repository was technically feasible, one could be open 

by 2007-2009, and the spent fuel could be safely stored for 30 years after the end of a reactor’s 

license term.35 In 1990, we revisited the Decision and Temporary Storage Rule and updated the 

findings to reflect a new expected date for a repository to become available (“the first quarter of 

the twenty-first century”) and to include a 30-year license renewal term in our safe-storage 

analysis.36 In 2010, we issued another update that removed the anticipated date for repository 

availability (explaining instead that a repository would be available “when necessary”) and 

 

33 Id. at 417 (citing NRDC, 582 F.2d at 166). 

34 Id. at 418. In reaching this decision, the court recognized the long-term nature of the 

concerns associated with spent fuel storage and disposal when it declined to vacate the license 

amendments that were the subject of the case, noting that doing so “would effectively shut down 

the plants.” Id. Moreover, its decision was predicated on the context of the particular license 

amendments at issue—to allow high-density spent fuel storage; in fact, the court acknowledged 

the Second Circuit’s ruling in NRDC v. NRC and did not disagree with that result. See id. at 

417. 

35 1984 Waste Confidence Decision, 49 Fed. Reg. at 34,659-60; 1984 Temporary Storage Rule, 

49 Fed. Reg. at 34,688. 

36 See, e.g., 1990 Temporary Storage Rule, 55 Fed. Reg. at 38,473; 1990 Waste Confidence 

Decision, 55 Fed. Reg. at 38,503-04. 
- 12 - 

expanded the safe-storage analysis time frame from 30 years after the end of the reactor’s 

license term to 60 years after the end of the reactor’s license term.37

Several states, an Indian Tribe, and environmental organizations (some of whom are 

Petitioners here) filed suit before the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 

challenging the 2010 update to the Decision and Temporary Storage Rule. In 2012, in New 

York v. NRC, the court vacated and remanded the decision and rule, and found that we had not 

satisfied our obligations under NEPA with respect to three issues: (1) we did not consider the 

environmental impacts of a repository never becoming available; (2) our analysis of spent fuel 

pool leaks was not forward-looking; and (3) we had not sufficiently considered the 

consequences of spent fuel pool fires.38 The court did not specifically address any issues 

arising under the Atomic Energy Act. 

Following the court’s decision in New York, we suspended all final decisions for licenses 

that relied on the Waste Confidence Decision and Temporary Storage Rule.39 Shortly thereafter 

we directed the NRC staff to prepare a generic environmental impact statement to support an 

updated rule and address the deficiencies that the court identified.40 We approved the final 

Continued Storage GEIS and Rule, now known as the Continued Storage Rule, in September 

 

37 See, e.g., 2010 Temporary Storage Rule, 75 Fed. Reg. at 81,037; 2010 Waste Confidence 

Decision, 75 Fed. Reg. at 81,038. 

38 New York v. NRC, 681 F.3d 471, 473, 481-82 (D.C. Cir. 2012). 

39 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Project, LLC (Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 3), CLI-12-16, 76 

NRC 63, 66-67 (2011). 

40 Staff Requirements—COMSECY-12-0016—Approach for Addressing Policy Issues Resulting 

from Court Decision to Vacate Waste Confidence Decision and Rule (Sept. 6, 2012) 

(ML12250A032). 
- 13 - 

2014.41 Although it did not include the discrete findings made in the waste confidence 

proceedings, and although it did not express our conclusions in terms of “reasonable 

assurance,” the Continued Storage GEIS contains a comprehensive discussion supporting our 

unqualified conclusion that both safe storage and disposal in a repository are technically 

feasible.42 

Thus, while much has changed since we last addressed the specific issue raised in 

Petitioners’ contention, much has stayed the same. In each of our waste confidence 

proceedings, as well as in the recently concluded continued storage proceeding, we determined 

that deep geologic disposal of spent nuclear fuel is technically feasible.43 Similarly, throughout 

our rulemakings conducted over the past thirty years, neither we nor the courts have questioned 

our initial conclusion that the Atomic Energy Act does not require the explicit “reasonable 

assurance” finding requested by Petitioners. And of course, our licensing has proceeded on the 

basis of these well-settled premises. 

II. DISCUSSION 

With this background in mind, we turn to the petitions at hand. Petitioners claim a 

deficiency in our ability to satisfy our basic licensing responsibilities under the Atomic Energy 

Act, which Petitioners believe results in the loss of our “lawful basis for licensing or relicensing 

 

41 Staff Requirements—Affirmation Session 10:00 a.m., Tuesday, August 26, 2014, 

Commissioners’ Conference Room, One White Flint North, Rockville, Maryland (Open to Public 

Attendance) (Aug. 26, 2014) (ML14237A092). 

42 See generally Continued Storage GEIS, app. B. 

43 Compare 1984 Waste Confidence Decision, 49 Fed. Reg. at 34,659, with 1990 Temporary 

Storage Rule, 55 Fed. Reg. at 38,472, and with Continued Storage GEIS § B.2.1. 
- 14 - 

nuclear reactors.”44 This claim is distinguishable from those raised in the suspension petitions 

that we have considered in recent years. Following the events of September 11, 2001, and 

again following the accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi, petitioners asserted that our actions were 

insufficient to satisfy our general obligation under the Atomic Energy Act to protect public health 

and safety.45 Here, on the other hand, Petitioners claim that we have an obligation under the 

Atomic Energy Act to make explicit findings regarding the safety of spent fuel disposal as a 

prerequisite to our reactor licensing decisions.46 As such, our usual framework for considering 

suspension requests is not applicable to the case at hand. Instead, exercising our inherent 

supervisory authority over agency proceedings, we consider Petitioners’ claims regarding the 

scope of our obligations under the Atomic Energy Act. As discussed below, we find Petitioners’ 

Atomic Energy Act claims to be without merit, and we therefore deny the petitions and the 

companion proposed contention and motions to reopen.47

 

44 Reply at 11. 

45 See, e.g., Private Fuel Storage, L.L.C. (Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation), CLI-01-

26, 54 NRC 376, 380 (2001); Union Electric Co. d/b/a Ameren Missouri (Callaway Plant, Unit 2), 

CLI-11-5, 74 NRC 141, 151 (2011). 

46 Reply at 11. As Petitioners acknowledge, “the Petition is not a motion for a stay of the 

effectiveness of a decision pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.342 or any other kind of request for 

equitable relief.” Id. (emphasis in original). See generally 10 C.F.R. § 2.342 (governing stays of 

the actions or decisions of a presiding officer pending filing of a petition for review). 

47 Because Petitioners’ Atomic Energy Act claim fails, they have not raised an issue material to 

findings that the NRC must make to support final decisions in the captioned matters and they 

are unable to satisfy our contention admissibility standards or meet the criteria to reopen a 

closed record. See 10 C.F.R. §§ 2.309(f)(1) and 2.326. We therefore decline to admit 

Petitioners’ proposed contention and deny their motions to reopen. Moreover, we deny as moot 

Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League’s motions to reopen in the Sequoyah and Bellefonte 

proceedings because those proceedings remain open. See TVA Answer to Motion to Reopen 

at 1. 
- 15 - 

Together with the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, the Atomic Energy Act provides 

the basis for our authority to regulate the use of special nuclear material in facilities like nuclear 

power reactors.48 We can issue nuclear power reactor licenses to applicants only upon a finding 

that “the utilization ... of special nuclear material will be in accord with the common defense and 

security and will provide adequate protection to the health and safety of the public.”49 An 

applicant demonstrates its ability to meet these standards, and thus its entitlement to a license, 

by submitting a license application that satisfies our licensing criteria.50 If a power reactor 

license applicant is unable to meet our regulatory requirements or if we find that the proposed 

use of special nuclear material will not be in accord with the common defense and security or 

will not provide adequate protection of public health and safety, then we will not issue a 

license.51

 

48 Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2011-2297h-13 (2012) and Energy Reorganization 

Act of 1974, 42 U.S.C. §§ 5801-5891 (2012). 

49 Atomic Energy Act § 182a, 42 U.S.C. § 2232 (2012). 

As we noted in the Continued Storage GEIS, Congress 

“authorized and directed the NRC to issue regulations establishing 

requirements for providing adequate protection to public health 

and safety and common defense and security (see Atomic Energy 

Act [§] 161b) .... [U]nder current law, the NRC will issue a nuclear 

power plant or materials license (including a license authorizing 

storage of spent fuel) when the NRC determines that a license 

applicant has met the NRC’s regulatory standards for issuance of 

a license, addressing adequate protection of public health and 

safety and common defense and security, and the NRC has no 

reason to doubt that issuance of the license would provide 

adequate protection.” Continued Storage GEIS § 1.6.2.1. 

50 See, e.g., 10 C.F.R. pts. 50, 52, and 54. 

51 See, e.g., Maine Yankee Atomic Power Co. (Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station) 6 AEC 

1003, 1007 (1973) (“Unless the safety findings prescribed by the Atomic Energy Act and the 

(continued . . .) 
- 16 - 

Petitioners argue that part of this analysis must include a “safety” or “waste confidence” 

finding regarding the technical feasibility of a deep geologic repository for the disposal of spent 

fuel generated at nuclear power plants.52 Petitioners contend that without such a finding we are 

unable to make the required finding of adequate protection under the Atomic Energy Act and 

must, therefore, refrain from issuing licenses until this finding is made.53 Further, Petitioners 

argue, this safety finding must be supported by a separate NEPA analysis of the environmental 

impacts of spent fuel disposal—either in the form of an environmental impact statement or an 

environmental assessment.54

A. Petitioners’ Atomic Energy Act Claims 

Petitioners argue that the NRC’s historic practice, the plain language of the Atomic 

Energy Act, and relevant case law support their claims. We disagree. At no time have we, 

Congress, or the courts articulated the view that the Atomic Energy Act requires a “finding” or 

“predictive safety findings” regarding the disposal of spent fuel in a repository as a prerequisite 

to issuing a nuclear reactor license. We see no reason to alter our long-standing interpretation 

of the Atomic Energy Act. 

 

(. . . continued) 

regulations can be made, the reactor does not obtain a license—no matter how badly it is 

needed.”). 

52 Motion at 3-4. 

53 Petition at 2-3 (unnumbered). 

54 Motion to Reopen at 4. Among other things, Petitioners argue that this NEPA analysis must 

consider the costs of spent fuel storage and disposal. Id. 
- 17 - 

Our interpretation of the agency’s obligations under the Atomic Energy Act with respect 

to spent fuel disposal began with our 1977 denial of NRDC’s petition for rulemaking.55 We 

found then that the Atomic Energy Act does not require us to make a finding regarding spent 

fuel disposal as part of our reactor licensing decisions.56 And the Second Circuit endorsed our 

construction of the Act: 

[W]e hold that NRC is not required to conduct the rulemaking 

proceeding requested by NRDC or to withhold action on pending 

or future applications for nuclear power reactor operating licenses 

until it makes a determination that high-level radioactive wastes 

can be permanently disposed of safely.57

Both our denial of the petition for rulemaking and the court’s affirmance of this decision 

were grounded in the language of Atomic Energy Act sections 103, 161, and 182—the very 

sections relied upon here by Petitioners. As the court expressly concluded in NRDC, we find 

that Petitioners read “too much into the [Act].”58

Section 103d. prohibits the agency from issuing a license if doing so “would be inimical 

to the common defense and security or the health and safety of the public.”59 Petitioners claim 

that the “plain language” of this section conflicts with the interpretation of the Atomic Energy Act 

that we adopted in the denial of NRDC’s petition for rulemaking. Specifically, they take issue 

with our conclusion that “the statutory findings required by section 103 apply specifically to the 

‘proposed activities’ and ‘activities under such licenses’” but do not apply to disposal activities 

 

55 NRDC PRM Denial, 42 Fed. Reg. at 34,391-92. 

56 Id. 

57 NRDC, 582 F.2d at 175. 

58 Id. at 171. 

59 Atomic Energy Act, Commercial Licenses § 103, 42 U.S.C. § 2133 (2012). 
- 18 - 

that might result from the operation of a licensed facility.60 Section 103 does not contemplate 

consideration of spent fuel disposal in the NRC’s licensing decisions, and we decline to infer 

from Congress’s silence an affirmative obligation to the contrary.61

The same is true of the other Atomic Energy Act provisions upon which Petitioners rely. 

Section 161 establishes the general scope of the NRC’s authority, yet nowhere does it discuss 

spent fuel disposal.62 Similarly, section 182 specifies the information that must be provided by 

an applicant for a license with no reference to spent fuel disposal.63 Thus, the text of the Atomic 

Energy Act does not compel the conclusion that we are required to include “findings” regarding 

spent fuel disposal in our reactor licensing decisions, and we decline to interpret it otherwise. 

And, in light of our interpretation, the related NRC regulations do not require information about 

the eventual disposal of the spent fuel that would be generated by the reactor.64 

Moreover, as the Second Circuit explained in NRDC, the conclusion that the Atomic 

Energy Act does not require “safety findings” is further supported by the legislative history of the 

Act and subsequent Congressional action. For example, in 1959, Congress held hearings 

 

60 Motion at 6-7; NRDC PRM Denial, 42 Fed. Reg. at 34,391. 

61 See NRDC, 582 F.2d at 170-71. Petitioners also rely on the concurring opinion of Judge 

Tamm from Minnesota v. NRC. In his concurrence, Judge Tamm noted his “belief that section 

102(2)(C) of [NEPA] and section 103(d) [of the Act] ... mandate the determination that the 

Commission identified in” the NRDC PRM Denial. Minnesota, 602 F.2d at 419 (Tamm, J., 

concurring). But the majority did not express this view, and a concurring opinion, by its nature, 

does not carry the force of law, except in very narrow circumstances not applicable here. See 

generally United States v. Duvall, 740 F.3d 604, 605 (D.C. Cir. 2013). Had a majority of the 

Court in Minnesota agreed with Judge Tamm’s expansive view of our Atomic Energy Act 

obligations, these views would have been reflected in the majority opinion. 

62 Atomic Energy Act, General Provisions § 161, 42 U.S.C. § 2201 (2012). 

63 Atomic Energy Act, License Applications § 182, 42 U.S.C. § 2232 (2012). 

64 See, e.g., id.; 10 C.F.R. pts. 50, 52, and 54 (2014). 
- 19 - 

regarding the disposal of spent nuclear fuel and, at that time, Congress “was made aware of the 

fact that the problem of permanent disposal of high-level waste had not been solved.”65 But 

Congress did not restrict or modify the NRC’s licensing authority. Further, Congress later 

approved a continuation of the licensing approach in the Atomic Energy Act when it transferred 

the licensing functions of the Atomic Energy Commission to us via the Energy Reorganization 

Act of 1974.66 Had Congress believed that our licensing activities required the finding sought by 

Petitioners, it could have enacted legislation consistent with this understanding at any time 

between 1954 and today.67 That Congress has maintained this course despite our rejection of 

NRDC’s interpretation of the Atomic Energy Act in the denial of the petition for rulemaking, the 

Second Circuit’s endorsement of our construction of the Act in NRDC, and the numerous 

opportunities for legislative clarification provides further confirmation of the propriety of our 

interpretation of the Act.68

Petitioners rely heavily upon our statement, expressed as part of the policy discussion 

included in the denial of NRDC’s petition for rulemaking, that we would not continue to license 

reactors if we “did not have reasonable confidence that ... [spent fuel] can and will in due course 

 

65 NRDC PRM Denial, 42 Fed. Reg. at 34,392 (citing “Industrial Radioactive Waste Disposal,” 

Hearings Before the JCAE Special Subcommittee on Radiation, Jan. 29-30, Feb. 2-3, and July 

29, 1959, 86th Cong., 1st Sess. (1959)). 

66 Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, Pub. L. 93-438, 88 Stat. 1233 (1974). 

67 See, e.g., Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, Pub. L. No. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2201 (1982); 

Energy Policy Act of 2005, Pub. L. 109-58, 119 Stat. 594 (2005). 

68 Indeed, in recent years, numerous congressional hearings over the funding of the Yucca 

Mountain repository have highlighted the absence of a national consensus on siting a 

repository. 
- 20 - 

be disposed of safely.”69 They assert that this statement should guide our interpretation of the 

Act and that any acquiescence by Congress in our interpretation was conditioned on its 

existence.70 But in the NRDC PRM Denial we expressly distinguished findings of the kind 

contemplated by the Atomic Energy Act and the NRC’s licensing regulations from the more 

generalized conclusion in the policy statement.71 As we explained at the time: 

Even if, contrary to the Commission's view, some kind of prior 

finding on waste disposal safety were required under the statutory 

scheme, such a finding would not have to be a definitive 

conclusion that permanent disposal of high-level wastes can be 

accomplished safely at the present time. There is no question that 

prior to authorizing operation of a reactor the Commission must 

find pursuant to section 182 that hazards which become fully 

mature with start-up will be dealt with safely from the beginning. 

But the quality of this reactor safety finding can be readily 

distinguished from the quality of findings regarding impacts on 

public health and safety which will not mature until much later, if 

ever. The hazards associated with permanent disposal will 

become acute only at some relatively distant time when it might be 

no longer feasible to store radioactive wastes in facilities subject 

to surveillance.72

It was only after this discussion that we added: “The Commission would not continue to license 

reactors if it did not have reasonable confidence that the wastes can and will in due course be 

disposed of safely.”73 Moreover, we pointed out that the program for siting and developing a 

 

69 NRDC PRM Denial, 42 Fed. Reg. at 34,393. 

70 See, e.g., Reply at 7. 

71 NRDC PRM Denial, 42 Fed. Reg. at 34,393. 

72 Id. (emphasis added). 

73 Id.
- 21 - 

geologic repository was not within the NRC’s statutory responsibilities under the Atomic Energy 

Act, another reason rendering an explicit safety finding on spent fuel disposal inappropriate.74

When considered within the context of our denial of the petition for rulemaking, it is clear 

that the statement at issue was nothing more than what it purported to be: a statement of our 

policy regarding the licensing of nuclear power plants and our confidence in the availability of a 

disposal solution.75 This policy has always existed independent of our legal conclusion that no 

obligation exists under the Atomic Energy Act to make predictive findings regarding spent fuel 

disposal as part of our reactor licensing decisions. 

Petitioners also misapprehend the relevant case law. Specifically, Petitioners misread 

the Second Circuit’s opinion in NRDC v. NRC, the only court decision to have directly 

addressed the issue. Overlooking the express holding that endorsed our interpretation of the 

Act,76 Petitioners instead quote the court’s characterization of our policy and practice: “[The] 

NRC maintains that ... its long-continued regulatory practice of issuing operating licenses, with 

an implied finding of reasonable assurance that safe permanent disposal of [spent nuclear fuel] 

can be available when needed, is in accord with the intent of Congress underlying the [Atomic 

 

74 In this regard, we observed that the Energy Research and Development Administration (the 

Department of Energy’s predecessor agency) was responsible for the development of a highlevel waste repository; the NRC’s statutory responsibilities “to insure that permanent disposal of 

high-level radioactive wastes will be accomplished safely” were, and still are, limited to licensing 

the repository. Id. 

75 Id.

76 NRDC, 582 F.2d at 175 (“[W]e hold that NRC is not required to conduct the rulemaking 

proceeding requested by NRDC or to withhold action on pending or future applications for 

nuclear power reactor operating licenses until it makes a determination that high-level 

radioactive wastes can be permanently disposed of safely.”).
- 22 - 

Energy Act] and [Energy Reorganization Act].”77 But that description neither constitutes the 

court’s holding nor reflects an admission concerning our interpretation of our statutory 

obligations. Rather, it reflects our view that our practice was consistent with the conclusion that 

a specific finding of repository feasibility was not a prerequisite under the Atomic Energy Act to 

reactor licensing. And the court agreed: “Congress expressly recognized and impliedly 

approved NRC’s regulatory scheme and practice under which the safety of interim storage of 

high-level wastes at commercial nuclear power reactor sites has been determined separately 

from the safety of Government-owned permanent storage [disposal] facilities which have not, as 

yet, been established.”78

Petitioners also rely on two subsequent decisions by the D.C. Circuit, New York v. NRC

and Minnesota v. NRC. But in neither of these cases did the court find a statutory obligation on 

the part of the NRC to prepare “waste confidence” safety findings prior to or as part of our 

reactor licensing decisions. In New York, the court did not consider Atomic Energy Act issues. 

Instead, the remand was based solely on the court’s finding that we did not satisfy our 

obligations under NEPA.79

In Minnesota, the court remanded for our consideration the question “whether there is 

reasonable assurance that an off-site storage solution will be available by ... the expiration of 

the plants’ operating licenses, and if not, whether there is reasonable assurance that the [spent] 

fuel can be stored safely at the sites beyond those dates.”80 Further, as distinct from the 

 

77 Id. at 170. 

78 Id. at 174. 

79 New York, 681 F.3d at 471, 483. 

80 Minnesota, 602 F.2d at 418. 
- 23 - 

concurrence, the court majority refrained from identifying an obligation to make findings under 

the Atomic Energy Act. In that regard, the court expressly declined to “set aside or stay the 

challenged license amendments,”81 thus confirming that the court did not view the amendments 

to be contingent upon any additional safety determination under the Atomic Energy Act. 

To be sure, our “findings” in the initial waste confidence proceeding likely caused some 

confusion. We understand that because of how they were framed, they could have been, and 

likely were, interpreted by some as safety findings made under and compelled by the Atomic 

Energy Act. That we responded to the Minnesota remand as we did, however, does not mean 

that the particular form of our response was compelled by the Atomic Energy Act. Rather, the 

formal “findings” in the initial waste confidence proceeding resulted from our use of a hybrid 

rulemaking proceeding, which combined elements of a formal “on the record” proceeding with 

the more common “notice and comment” rulemaking widely used today.82 Formal rulemakings 

often result in “findings,” such as the ones we made in our first waste confidence proceeding.83 

Moreover, that approach made sense at the time, which was long before our framework for 

regulating the safe storage and disposal of spent fuel had matured into its current state, and 

long before we had comprehensively evaluated the environmental impacts of the storage of 

spent nuclear fuel for an extended time frame—a task we now have completed in the Continued 

Storage GEIS. 

Throughout their motions, Petitioners ascribe significance to our failure to use the term 

“reasonable assurance” to describe the extent of our consideration of the technical feasibility of 

 

81 Id. at 413. 

82 See 1984 Waste Confidence Decision, 49 Fed. Reg. at 34,658-60. 

83 See id. 
- 24 - 

disposal.84 But as the technical agency entrusted by Congress to make determinations of this 

sort, we have concluded—without qualification—that a geologic repository is technically 

feasible.85 As we acknowledged in the Continued Storage GEIS, the uncertainty in spent fuel 

disposal lies not with the technical feasibility of long-term storage and disposal, but with the 

political and societal factors that continue to delay the construction of a repository.86 We 

recognized this uncertainty in the Continued Storage GEIS by analyzing the possibility that a 

repository will never become available.87 Our decision today is consistent with our longstanding 

conclusion. 

Finally, it bears repeating that our recently completed Continued Storage GEIS 

considers the issues raised by Petitioners. Many of the groups petitioning us now provided 

essentially identical comments as part of our recently completed Continued Storage 

proceeding.88 We responded to Petitioners’ comments in the final GEIS and nothing has 

changed since then that would cause us to question the technical feasibility of disposal in a 

repository—safe geologic disposal is achievable with currently available technology.89 Our 

analysis in the Continued Storage GEIS builds on decades of experience and multiple 

 

84 See, e.g., Reply at 9-10. 

85 Continued Storage GEIS § B.2.1. 

86 Id. 

87 See, e.g., id. § 1.8.2. 

88 See, e.g., Corrected comments of “Environmental Organizations on Draft Waste Confidence 

Generic Environmental Impact Statement and Proposed Waste Confidence Rule and Petition to 

Revise and Integrate All Safety and Environmental Regulations Related to Spent Fuel Storage 

and Disposal,” at 14, 16 (Jan. 7, 2014) (ML14024A297). 

89 We responded to the concerns raised by Petitioners in Appendix D of the Continued Storage 

GEIS. See, e.g., Continued Storage GEIS §§ D.2.1.2, D.2.4.1, and B.2 (discussing the 

technical feasibility of disposal in a repository). 
- 25 - 

rulemaking proceedings.90 Specifically, our conclusion finds support in ongoing research in the 

United States and abroad, along with the ability to characterize and quantitatively assess the 

capabilities of geologic and engineered barriers, experience gained from the Staff’s review of 

the Department of Energy’s construction authorization application for a repository at Yucca 

Mountain, disposal activities at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, and continued progress toward a 

repository in other countries.91 Indeed, contrary to the situation that accompanied the issuance 

of the initial Waste Confidence Decision, our regulatory framework now includes specific 

standards and requirements for licensing the storage of spent fuel and, in the case of Yucca 

Mountain, standards for licensing a repository.92 

Since we deny Petitioners’ petition to suspend and related motions, we need not 

address the related NEPA issue raised in the motions.93 Nevertheless, we do so to provide 

additional clarity regarding the scope of our NEPA responsibilities. NEPA requires us to 

consider the environmental impacts of major agency actions, such as the issuance of an initial 

or renewed nuclear power reactor license. In some cases, we have addressed environmental 

impacts generically.94 The courts have consistently found generic analyses of the 

 

90 Id. § B.2. 

91 See generally id. at B-2 to B-5. 

92 See, e.g., 10 C.F.R. pts. 60, 63, and 72. 

93 Motion at 12-14. 

94 See, e.g., NUREG-1437, Revision 1, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License 

Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants—Final Report (June 2013) (ML13107A023). 
- 26 - 

environmental impacts of continued storage and disposal in the context of our reactor licensing 

proceedings to be acceptable.95

Petitioners contend that their requested “safety decision” regarding the feasibility of a 

repository would constitute a federal action that would require us to prepare a separate NEPA 

analysis to support our conclusion that spent fuel disposal is technically feasible.96 Petitioners 

further assert that this separate analysis was “required by the Court of Appeals in New York.”97 

We disagree. We find nothing in the court’s decision to support Petitioners’ assertion. 

Nonetheless, any finding we have made, whether express or implied, does not require its own 

environmental analysis; it is simply a confirmation of what Congress and the courts have 

previously understood—that we believe it is safe to proceed with reactor licensing because it is 

ultimately possible to dispose of spent nuclear fuel safely.98 And of course, each reactor 

 

95 See, e.g., New York, 681 F.3d at 480 (citing Baltimore Gas & Elec. Co. v. NRDC, 462 U.S. 

87, 100, 103 (1983)) and Minnesota, 602 F.2d at 416-17. 

96 Motion at 13. 

97 Id. at 14. 

98 In this vein, Petitioners misapprehend our statement in the Continued Storage GEIS that “in 

this GEIS and Rule, the NRC is not making a safety determination under the Atomic Energy 

Act ... to allow for the continued storage of spent fuel. [The Atomic Energy ActRic] safety 

determinations would be made as part of individual licensing actions.” See Motion at 14 n.54 

(citing Continued Storage GEIS at D-9). This commitment does not deviate from our long-held 

view that the [Act] does not require findings regarding spent fuel disposal at the time of reactor 

or storage facility licensing. We intended only to correct the misimpression that safety findings 

for the purposes of making final licensing decisions were to be found in our NEPA rulemaking. 

We therefore noted that these safety findings would be made in future licensing actions as 

necessary—for example, in the licensing of spent fuel storage facilities after the end of a 

reactor’s license term. The Atomic Energy Act “safety determinations” to which we referred in 

the Continued Storage GEIS and Rule were not those that Petitioners claim to be required here 

for spent fuel disposal—they were our well-known determinations that are made as part of final 

licensing decisions. Continued Storage GEIS at D-9. 
- 27 - 

licensing decision will have to be made in light of the full panoply of reasonably foreseeable 

environmental impacts that can fairly be attributed to the proposed action.99

In light of the foregoing, we find that Petitioners have not demonstrated a legal basis for 

their contention. It follows that Petitioners have not stated a valid contention that satisfies our 

contention admissibility criteria in 10 C.F.R. § 2.309, nor have they satisfied the criteria to 

reopen a closed record in 10 C.F.R. § 2.326.100

B. Additional Considerations Concerning the Issuance of Licenses 

For the reasons discussed above, we do not interpret the Atomic Energy Act to require 

us to make safety findings regarding the technical feasibility of a repository as a prerequisite to 

our reactor licensing decisions. We are nonetheless aware of the public’s concerns about the 

safety issues associated with the waste generated by the facilities that we license. For this 

reason, we stress that our ongoing efforts to ensure adequate protection of the public health 

and safety are not circumscribed by a narrow conception of what the law requires or a stagnant 

approach to regulation. Accordingly, we set forth below the considerations that guide our 

 

99 Petitioners additionally argue that we must prepare a cost-benefit analysis that considers the 

“costs of spent fuel storage and disposal” as part of their requested NEPA analysis. Motion to 

Reopen at 4. In response to comments on the draft Continued Storage GEIS and Rule 

regarding the cost of continued storage, the Staff added additional information to the Continued 

Storage GEIS to ensure that NRC decision-makers, applicants, licensees, and the public would 

have sufficient information to appropriately consider the costs of continued storage in NEPA 

analyses for future licensing actions. See generally Continued Storage GEIS, ch. 2. Here, we 

need not expand upon the disclosure of cost information found in the GEIS. To the extent 

required by NEPA, the Staff will, as appropriate, consider the cost information contained in 

Chapter 2 of the GEIS as part of the cost-benefit analyses prepared in conjunction with NEPA 

reviews for individual licensing proceedings. 

100 Petitioners, Applicants, and the Staff present numerous arguments regarding the procedural 

propriety of the petition and motions now before us. Because we find that the suspension 

petition and new contention fail on the merits, and we consider—and take action on—the 

petition and motions in our supervisory capacity, we need not address these procedural issues. 

See, e.g., Callaway, CLI-11-5, 74 NRC at 158 n.65. 
- 28 - 

analysis of these issues and our conclusion that licensing nuclear plants will not endanger the 

public health and safety. 

 As an initial matter, the disposal question is inextricably linked to the question of the 

technical feasibility of safe storage pending disposal. As we acknowledged in the Continued 

Storage GEIS, the time frames we considered, including one that contemplates indefinite 

storage, depend on the continued technical feasibility of safely storing spent fuel as it ages.101 

Our regulations, including those in 10 C.F.R. Parts 50, 52, and 72, establish stringent safety 

requirements that apply to the construction and operation of reactor spent fuel pools and 

independent spent fuel storage installations.102 Even after the end of a reactor’s license term, 

these storage facilities will continue to be subject to our regulations governing spent fuel 

storage, which ensure that these safety requirements remain in place for as long as the fuel is 

stored.103 For example, 10 C.F.R. § 50.54(bb), which requires licensees to submit for NRC 

approval their plans to manage spent fuel after the permanent cessation of reactor operation; 

and 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix A, Criterion 61, which requires that spent fuel storage systems 

be designed to assure adequate safety under normal and postulated accident conditions, 

directly relate to the safe storage of spent fuel after a reactor has stopped operating. 

Spent fuel can be stored safely in spent fuel pools or independent spent fuel storage 

installations licensed under the Atomic Energy Act. Indeed, we recently concluded in our 

Continued Storage rulemaking that the indefinite storage of spent fuel in dry casks, if it becomes 

 

101 Continued Storage GEIS §§ B.2 and B.3. 

102 See, e.g., id. § D.2.4.1, at D-28 to D-32. 

103 Id. 
- 29 - 

necessary, is technically feasible.104 As reflected in the Continued Storage GEIS, several 

characteristics of dry cask storage systems ensure that these systems can safely store spent 

fuel; among others, these systems are massive, passive, and inherently robust.105 

Further, our regulatory process is dynamic: we continue to revise and refine our 

regulatory regime as our technical knowledge and experience grows.106 Thus, we rely both 

upon our ability to ensure that licensees conform to existing regulations and upon our 

comprehensive regulatory scheme that takes into account the length of time during which, and 

the conditions under which, the storage of spent fuel will occur. For example, in our waste 

confidence proceedings, we assessed the technical feasibility of geologic disposal, along with 

the continued storage of spent fuel pending the availability of a repository. As early as 1990, 

however, we recognized that the length of the continued storage period could be significantly 

longer than the specific time periods originally reflected in the Temporary Storage Rule.107 But 

we did not examine the safety or environmental consequences of storing fuel for longer time 

frames because we assumed that the Department of Energy would have a deep geologic 

 

104 In accordance with the direction of the court of appeals, we analyzed a scenario where a 

repository never becomes available. New York, 681 F.3d at 479. As part of this analysis, we 

determined that it is technically feasible to store spent fuel indefinitely, should it become 

necessary to do so. Continued Storage GEIS § B.3. 

105 Id. 

106 See, e.g., Final Rule, License and Certificate of Compliance Terms, 76 Fed. Reg. 8873 (Feb. 

16, 2011) (extending the maximum possible length of licenses issued under 10 C.F.R. pt. 72 

from 20 years to 40 years). 

107 In our 1990 Waste Confidence Decision, we noted that “[a]lthough the Commission does not 

dispute the statement that dry spent fuel storage is safe and environmentally acceptable for a 

period of 100 years, the Commission does not find it necessary to make that specific finding in 

this proceeding.” 1990 Waste Confidence Decision, 55 Fed. Reg. at 38,473. 
- 30 - 

repository available within those time frames.108 We revisited this assumption as a 

consequence of the remand in New York v. NRC, and we now have analyzed the impacts of 

spent fuel storage over much longer time frames.109 We expect that our regulatory process will 

not be static and will continue to evolve in the future. 

Disposal in a deep geologic repository remains the option that Congress has selected for 

addressing the problem of spent nuclear fuel, and we have neither a mandate nor a reason to 

question this determination. For the reasons stated in the Continued Storage GEIS, we believe 

that a geologic repository is technically feasible and that, with sufficient political and societal 

commitment, a repository can become available within 25–35 years.110 But we have no crystal 

ball. We recognize, as we did in 1977, that the hazards associated with spent fuel could 

become acute at some distant time. We also recognize, as we must, that our statutory mission 

only confers upon us the authority to license, and not to construct, a permanent repository.111 

Thus, our statutory obligation to ensure the adequate protection of public health and safety 

encompasses an ongoing responsibility to regulate the continued storage of spent fuel, with or 

without a repository. Our long history with these issues (including our ability to adapt our 

regulatory processes based upon changing circumstances) continues to support our conclusion 

that safe, permanent disposal of spent nuclear fuel is technically feasible and that spent fuel can 

 

108 See id. at 38,482. 

109 See, e.g., Continued Storage GEIS, chs. 4 and 5. 

110 Id. § B.2. 

111 The Nuclear Waste Policy Act assigned the responsibility for constructing and operating a 

repository to the Department of Energy, not the NRC. See, e.g., Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 

1982 § 114, 42 U.S.C. § 10134 (2012). 
- 31 - 

be safely stored until a repository is available, or indefinitely should such storage become 

necessary. 

 Congress has entrusted this agency to ensure adequate protection of public health and 

safety by granting us the authority to condition licenses and to enforce our regulations. In our 

view, licensing production and utilization facilities now and relying upon our overall regulatory 

regime to address both ongoing safe storage and the construction of a repository in the future 

does not constitute an abdication of our statutory obligations. Rather, we understand these 

actions to be precisely what Congress intended when it both authorized the NRC to issue 

licenses for nuclear power plants and granted the agency broad regulatory and enforcement 

authority to protect the public health and safety and common defense and security. 

III. CONCLUSION 

In light of these considerations, and in light of our determination that the Atomic Energy 

Act does not require us to make the “waste confidence safety finding” that Petitioners propose, 

we decline to suspend final licensing decisions in the captioned proceedings. We therefore 

deny Petitioners’ suspension requests and deny Petitioners’ associated motions for leave to file 

new contentions and to reopen the record.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 For the Commission 

NRC SEAL 

 /RA/ . 

 Annette L. Vietti-Cook 

 Secretary of the Commission 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, 

this 26th day of February, 2015. 
- 32 - 

APPENDIX 

PETITIONS AND MOTIONS 

1. Served in all captioned proceedings except Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Indian 

Point Nuclear Generating, Units 2 and 3): Petition to Suspend Final Decisions in All 

Pending Reactor Licensing Proceedings Pending Issuance of Waste Confidence Safety 

Findings (Sept. 29, 2014); Errata to Petition to Suspend Final Decisions in All Pending 

Reactor Licensing Proceedings Pending Issuance of Waste Confidence Safety Findings

(Oct. 1, 2014); and Petition to Suspend Final Decisions in All Pending Reactor Licensing 

Proceedings Pending Issuance of Waste Confidence Safety Findings—Amended and 

Corrected (Oct. 6, 2014). 

2. DTE Electric Co. (Fermi Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 3): Intervenors’ Motion for Leave to 

File a New Contention Concerning the Absence of Required Waste Confidence Safety 

Findings in the Combined Operating Licensing Proceeding for Fermi 3 Nuclear Power 

Plant (Sept. 29, 2014). 

3. DTE Electric Co. (Fermi Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 2): Petitioners’ Motion for Leave to 

Amend and Supplement Contention 3 Concerning the Absence of Required Waste 

Confidence Safety Findings in the Relicensing Proceeding for Fermi 2 Nuclear Power 

Plant (Sept. 29, 2014). 

4. Duke Energy Carolinas, L.L.C. (William States Lee III Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2): 

Petitioner’s Motion for Leave to File a New Contention Concerning the Absence of 

Required Waste Confidence Safety Findings in the Licensing Proceeding at William 

States Lee III Nuclear Power Plant (Sept. 29, 2014). 

5. Duke Energy Carolinas, L.L.C. (William States Lee III Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2): 

Motion to Reopen the Record for William States Lee III Nuclear Power Plant (Sept. 29, 

2014). 

6. Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Units 2 and 3): 

Petition to Suspend Final Decision in Indian Point Relicensing Proceeding Pending 

Issuance of Waste Confidence Safety Findings (Oct. 3, 2014). 

7. Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Units 2 and 3): 

Riverkeeper Consolidated Motion for Leave to File a New Contention and New

Contention RK-10 Concerning the Absence of Required Waste Confidence Safety 

Findings (Oct. 3, 2014). 

8. FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Co. (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1): 

Intervenors’ Motion for Leave to File a New Contention Concerning the Absence of 

Required Waste Confidence Safety Findings in the Relicensing Proceeding for DavisBesse Nuclear Power Station (Sept. 29, 2014). 

9. Florida Power & Light Co. (Turkey Point, Units 6 and 7): Intervenors’ Motion for Leave to 

File a New Contention Concerning the Absence of Required Waste Confidence Safety 

Findings in the Licensing Proceeding at Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plant (Sept. 29, 

2014). 
- 33 - 

10. Luminant Generation Co. L.L.C. (Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant, Units 3 and 4): 

Motion to Reopen the Record for Comanche Peak Units 3 & 4 Nuclear Power Plant

(Sept. 29, 2014). 

11. Luminant Generation Co. L.L.C. (Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant, Units 3 and 4): 

Petitioners’ Motion for Leave to File a New Contention Concerning the Absence of 

Required Waste Confidence Safety Findings in the Licensing Proceeding at Comanche 

Peak Units 3 & 4 (Sept. 29, 2014). 

12. Nextera Energy Seabrook, L.L.C. (Seabrook Station, Unit 1): Shadis, Raymond, Friends 

of the Coast and New England Coalition, letter to Administrative Judges (Sept. 29, 

2014). 

13. Nuclear Innovation North America, L.L.C. (South Teas Project, Units 3 and 4): Motion to 

Reopen the Record for South Texas Project 3 & 4 Nuclear Power Plant (Sept. 29, 2014). 

14. Nuclear Innovation North America, L.L.C. (South Teas Project, Units 3 and 4): 

Petitioners’ Motion for Leave to File a New Contention Concerning the Absence of 

Required Waste Confidence Safety Findings in the Licensing Proceeding at South Texas 

Project Units 3 & 4 Nuclear Power Plant (Sept. 29, 2014). 

15. Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 and 2): San Luis 

Obispo Mothers for Peace Motion for Leave to File a New Contention Concerning the 

Absence of Required Waste Confidence Safety Findings (Sept. 29, 2014). 

16. Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (Levy County Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2): 

Ecology Party of Florida and Nuclear Information and Resource Services’ Motion to 

Reopen the Record (Sept. 29, 2014). 

17. Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (Levy County Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2): 

Ecology Party of Florida and Nuclear Information and Resource Services’ Motion for 

Leave to File a New Contention Concerning the Absence of Required Waste Confidence 

Safety Findings (Sept. 29, 2014). 

18. Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (Levy County Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2): 

Intervenors’ Unopposed Motion to Withdraw Their Motion to Reopen the Record (Oct. 2, 

2014). 

19. STP Nuclear Operating Co. (South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2): Motion to Reopen the 

Record for South Texas Project Units 1 & 2 Nuclear Power Plant (Sept. 29, 2014). 

20. STP Nuclear Operating Co. (South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2): Petitioners’ Motion for 

Leave to File a New Contention Concerning the Absence of Required Waste Confidence 

Safety Findings in the Relicensing Proceeding at South Texas Project Electric 

Generating Statio[sic] Units 1 and 2 (Sept. 29, 2014). 

21. Tennessee Valley Authority (Bellefonte Nuclear Power Plant, Units 3 and 4): Motion to 

Reopen the Record for Bellefonte Nuclear Power Plant (Sept. 29, 2014). 
- 34 - 

22. Tennessee Valley Authority (Bellefonte Nuclear Power Plant, Units 3 and 4): Intervenor’s 

Motion for Leave to File a New Contention Concerning the Absence of Required Waste 

Confidence Safety Findings in the Licensing Proceeding at Bellefonte Nuclear Power 

Plant (Sept. 29, 2014). 

23. Tennessee Valley Authority (Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2): Motion to Reopen 

the Record for Sequoyah Nuclear Power Plant (Sept. 29, 2014). 

24. Tennessee Valley Authority (Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2): Intervenor’s 

Motion for Leave to File a New Contention Concerning the Absence of Required Waste 

Confidence Safety Findings in the Re-Licensing Proceeding at Sequoyah Nuclear Power 

Plant (Sept. 29, 2014). 

25. Tennessee Valley Authority (Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 2): Southern Alliance for 

Clean Energy’s Motion to Reopen the Record (Sept. 29, 2014). 

26. Tennessee Valley Authority (Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 2): Southern Alliance for 

Clean Energy’s Motion for Leave to File a New Contention Concerning the Absence of 

Required Waste Confidence Safety Findings (Sept. 29, 2014). 

27. Union Electric Co. (Callaway Plant, Unit 1): Motion to Reopen the Record for Callaway 

Nuclear Power Plant (Sept. 29, 2014). 

28. Union Electric Co. (Callaway Plant, Unit 1): Missouri Coalition for the Environment’s 

Motion for Leave to File a New Contention Concerning the Absence of Required Waste 

Confidence Safety Findings in the Relicensing Proceeding at Callaway 1 Nuclear Power 

Plant (Sept. 29, 2014). 

29. Virginia Electric and Power Co. d/b/a Dominion Virginia Power and Old Dominion 

Electric Cooperative (North Anna Power Station, Unit 3): Motion to Reopen the Record 

for North Anna Nuclear Power Plant (Sept. 29, 2014). 

30. Virginia Electric and Power Co. d/b/a Dominion Virginia Power and Old Dominion 

Electric Cooperative (North Anna Power Station, Unit 3): Petitioner’s Motion for Leave to 

File a New Contention Concerning the Absence of Required Waste Confidence Safety 

Findings in the Licensing Proceeding at North Anna Nuclear Power Plant (Sept. 29, 

2014). 

 
- 35 - 

RESPONSIVE PLEADINGS 

1. Served in all captioned proceedings: NRC Staff Consolidated Answer to Petitions to 

Suspend Final Reactor Licensing Decisions, Motions to Admit a New Contention, and 

Motions to Reopen the Record (Oct. 31, 2014). 

2. Served in all captioned proceedings: Nuclear Energy Institute, Inc.’s Motion for Leave to 

File Amicus Curiae Brief; Amicus Curiae Brief of the Nuclear Energy Institute, Inc. in 

Response to Suspension Petitions and Waste Confidence Safety Contentions (Oct. 31, 

2014). 

3. Served in all captioned proceedings: Petitioners’ and Intervenors’ Consolidated Reply to 

Answers to Petitions to Suspend Final Reactor Licensing Decisions, Motions to Admit a 

New Contention, and Motions to Reopen the Record (Nov. 7, 2014). 

4. DTE Electric Co. (Fermi Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 3): Applicant’s Opposition to Petition 

to Suspend Final Decisions and Proposed New Continued Storage Contention (Oct. 31, 

2014). 

5. DTE Electric Co. (Fermi Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 2): Applicant’s Opposition to Petition 

to Suspend Final Decisions and Proposed New Continued Storage Contention (Oct. 31, 

2014). 

6. Duke Energy Carolinas, L.L.C. (William States Lee III Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2): 

Duke Energy’s Answer Opposing Petition to Suspend Licensing Proceedings, Related 

Contention and Motion to Reopen (Oct. 31, 2014). 

7. Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Units 2 and 3): 

Entergy’s Combined Answer to Riverkeeper’s Proposed New Contention RK-10 and 

Petition to Suspend Final License Renewal Decision Pending Issuance of Waste 

Confidence “Safety” Findings (Oct. 31, 2014). 

8. FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Co. (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1): 

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company Combined Response to Proposed Contention 

and Petition to Suspend Related to Alleged Need for Issuance of Waste Confidence 

Safety Findings (Oct. 31, 2014). 

9. Florida Power & Light Co. (Turkey Point, Units 6 and 7): FPL’s Answer Opposing 

Petition to Suspend Licensing Proceedings and Related Contention (Oct. 31, 2014). 

10. Luminant Generation Co. L.L.C. (Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant, Units 3 and 4): 

Luminant Combined Response to Proposed Contention and Petition to Suspend Related 

to Alleged Need for Issuance of Waste Confidence Safety Findings (Oct. 31, 2014). 

11. Nextera Energy Seabrook, L.L.C. (Seabrook Station, Unit 1): Nextera’s Answer 

Opposing Petition to Suspend Licensing Proceedings (Oct. 31, 2014). 

12. Nuclear Innovation North America, L.L.C. (South Teas Project, Units 3 and 4): Nuclear 

Innovation North America LLC Combined Response to Proposed Contention and 
- 36 - 

Petition to Suspend Related to Alleged Need for Issuance of Waste Confidence Safety 

Findings (Oct. 31, 2014). 

13. Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 and 2): Applicant’s 

Opposition to Petition to Suspend Final Decisions and Proposed New Continued 

Storage Contention (Oct. 31, 2014). 

14. Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (Levy County Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2): Answer 

of Progress Energy Florida, Inc. Opposing Petition to Suspend Licensing Proceedings 

and Related Contention (Oct. 31, 2014). 

15. STP Nuclear Operating Co. (South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2): STP Nuclear 

Operating Company Combined Response to Proposed Contention and Petition to 

Suspend Related to Alleged Need for Issuance of Waste Confidence Safety Findings 

(Oct. 31, 2014). 

16. Tennessee Valley Authority (Bellefonte Nuclear Power Plant, Units 3 and 4 and 

Sequoyah Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2): Tennessee Valley Authority’s Answer to 

Motion to Reopen the Record for Sequoyah Nuclear Power Plant and Motion to Reopen 

the Record for Bellefonte Nuclear Power Plant (Oct. 31, 2014). 

17. Tennessee Valley Authority (Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 2): Tennessee Valley 

Authority’s Answer Opposing Southern Alliance for Clean Energy’s Motion to Reopen 

the Record (Oct. 31. 2014). 

18. Tennessee Valley Authority (Bellefonte Nuclear Power Plant, Units 3 and 4; Sequoyah 

Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2; and Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 2): Tennessee 

Valley Authority’s Answer Opposing Petition to Suspend Final Decisions in All Pending 

Reactor Licensing Proceedings Pending Issuance of Waste Confidence Safety Findings 

and Motions for Leave to File New Contention (Oct. 31, 2014). 

19. Union Electric Co. (Callaway Plant, Unit 1): Ameren’s Answer Opposing Petition to 

Suspend Licensing Proceedings, Related Contention and Motion to Reopen (Oct. 31, 

2014). 

20. Virginia Electric and Power Co. d/b/a Dominion Virginia Power and Old Dominion 

Electric Cooperative (North Anna Power Station, Unit 3): Dominion’s Answer Opposing 

Petition to Suspend Licensing Proceedings, Related Contention and Motion to Reopen 

(Oct. 31, 2014). 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

In the Matter of ) 

 ) 

UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY D/B/A AmerenUE ) 

 ) 

 ) Docket No. 50-483-LR 

(Callaway Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1) ) 

 ) 

(License Renewal) ) 

 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 

I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing COMMISSION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 

(CLI-15-4) have been served upon the following persons by Electronic Information Exchange. 

Office of Commission Appellate 

 Adjudication 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Washington, DC 20555-0001 

E-mail: ocaamail@nrc.gov

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Mail Stop - T-3 F23 

Washington, DC 20555-0001 

G. Paul Bollwerk, III, Chair 

 Administrative Judge 

E-mail: paul.bollwerk@nrc.gov 

William J. Froehlich 

Administrative Judge 

E-mail: william.froehlich@nrc.gov

Dr. Nicholas G. Trikouros 

Administrative Judge 

E-mail: nicholas.trikouros@nrc.gov 

Matthew Flyntz, Law Clerk 

Email: matthew.flyntz@nrc.gov

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Office of the Secretary of the Commission 

Mail Stop O-16C1 

Washington, DC 20555-0001 

Hearing Docket 

E-mail: hearingdocket@nrc.gov

Union Electric Company 

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP 

1200 Seventeenth Street NW 

Washington, DC 20036-3006 

David R. Lewis, Esq. 

Counsel for the Applicant 

E-mail: david.lewis@pillsburylaw.com

Missouri Coalition for the Environment 

Edward Smith, Safe Energy Director 

Diane Curran, Esq. 

Henry B. Robertson, Esq. 

Email: showmenocwip@gmail.com

dcurran@harmoncurran.com

hrobertson@greatriverslaw.org

 
Callaway Power Plant, Unit 1, Docket No. 50-483-LR 

COMMISSION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (CLI-15-4) 

2

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Office of the General Counsel 

Mail Stop - O-15 D21 

Washington, DC 20555-0001 

Edward Williamson, Esq. 

Mary Spencer, Esq. 

Catherine Kanatas, Esq. 

Anita Ghosh, Esq. 

Beth N. Mizuno, Esq. 

David Cylkowski, Esq. 

Brian Harris, Esq. 

Email: edward.williamson@nrc.gov

mary.spencer@nrc.gov

catherine.kanatas@nrc.gov

anita.ghosh@nrc.gov

beth.mizuno@nrc.gov 

david.cylkowski@nrc.gov

brian.harris@nrc.gov

OGG Mail Center: ogcmailcenter@nrc.gov

 

 

 [Original signed by Herald M. Speiser] 

 Office of the Secretary of the Commission 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, 

this 26th day of February, 2015