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 COMPANY Docket No. 52-033-COL

(Fermi Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 3)

 

DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC Docket Nos. 52-018-COL,

(William States Lee III Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2) 52-019-COL 

 

LUMINANT GENERATION COMPANY LLC Docket Nos. 52-034-COL,

(Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant, Units 3 and 4) 52-035-COL

 

NUCLEAR INNOVATION NORTH AMERICA LLC Docket Nos. 52-012-COL,

(South Texas Project Units 3 and 4) 52-013-COL

 

PROGRESS ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. Docket Nos. 52-029-COL,

(Levy County Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2) 52-030-COL

 

STP NUCLEAR OPERATING COMPANY Docket Nos. 50-498-LR,

(South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2) 50-499-LR

 

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY Docket No. 50-391-OL

(Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 2)

 

DOMINION VIRGINIA POWER Docket No. 52-017-COL

(North Anna Nuclear Power Station Unit 3)

 

 
- 2 - 

CLI-15-10 

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 

Several environmental organizations (collectively, Petitioners) have requested that we 

order the supplementation of final environmental impact statements in each of the captioned 

matters to reference the recently published Continued Storage generic environmental impact 

statement (Continued Storage GEIS).1

 For the reasons set forth below, we deny the petition. 

I. BACKGROUND 

Last year, we approved the Continued Storage Rule—supported by the Continued 

Storage GEIS—in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the 

Administrative Procedure Act, to assess the environmental impacts associated with the storage 

of spent nuclear fuel after the end of a reactor’s license term.2

 The Continued Storage Rule 

directs that the “impact determinations in [the Continued Storage GEIS] shall be deemed 

incorporated into the environmental impact statements” associated with combined license and 

license renewal applications, such as those at issue here.3

 Petitioners challenge the NRC 

Staff’s implementation of the Continued Storage Rule in the environmental impact statements 

 

1 Petition to Supplement Reactor-Specific Environmental Impact Statements to Incorporate by 

Reference the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Continued Spent Fuel Storage, 2

(Jan. 28, 2015) (Petition); 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). 

2

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

(Continued Storage Rule); National Environmental Policy Act § 102, 42 U.S.C. § 4332 (2012); 

Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 553 (2012). 

3

 10 C.F.R. § 51.23(b). 
- 3 - 

for the captioned matters.4

 The NRC Staff and the applicants oppose the petition; Petitioners 

have replied.5

II. DISCUSSION 

Petitioners argue that to comply with our obligations under NEPA and our implementing 

regulations in 10 C.F.R. part 51 we must supplement the final environmental impact statements 

 

4 See, e.g., Petition at 2. 

5 NRC Staff Opposition to the “Petition to Supplement Reactor-Specific Environmental Impact 

Statements to Incorporate by Reference the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Continued Spent Fuel Storage” (Feb. 12, 2015) (filed in each of the captioned matters) (Staff 

Answer); Luminant Response Opposing Petition to Supplement Environmental Impact 

Statements (Feb. 12, 2015); Applicant’s Opposition to Petition to Supplement Fermi 3 Final 

Environmental Impact Statement to Reference Continued Storage Generic Environmental 

Impact Statement (Feb. 12, 2015) (DTE Answer); Answer of Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 

Opposing Petition to Supplement W.S. Lee Final Environmental Impact Statement (Feb. 12, 

2015); Answer of Progress Energy Florida, Inc. Opposing Petition to Supplement Levy County 

Final Environmental Impact Statement (Feb. 12, 2015); Answer of Dominion Virginia Power 

Opposing Petition to Supplement North Anna Final Environmental Impact Statement (Feb. 12, 

2015); Nuclear Innovation North America LLC Response Opposing Petition to Supplement 

Environmental Impact Statements (Feb. 12, 2015); STP Nuclear Operating Company Response 

Opposing Petition to Supplement Environmental Impact Statements (Feb. 12, 2015); Tennessee 

Valley Authority’s Answer Opposing Petition to Supplement Reactor-Specific Environmental 

Impact Statements to Incorporate by Reference the Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

for Continued Spent Fuel Storage (Feb. 12, 2015); Petitioners’ Reply to Oppositions to Petition 

to Supplement Reactor-Specific Environmental Impact Statements to Incorporate by Reference 

the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Continued Spent Fuel Storage (Feb. 18, 2015) 

(Reply). 

The Nuclear Energy Institute filed an unopposed motion for leave to file a brief amicus curiae

opposing the Petition. Nuclear Energy Institute, Inc.’s Unopposed Motion for Leave to File 

Amicus Curiae Brief (Feb. 12, 2015); Amicus Curiae Brief of the Nuclear Energy Institute, Inc. in 

Response to Petitions to Supplement Site-Specific Environmental Impact Statements to 

Reference the Continued Storage Generic Environmental Impact Statement (Feb. 12, 2015). 

Our rule governing amicus curiae participation does not contemplate a brief under the current 

circumstances. See 10 C.F.R. § 2.315(d) (providing the opportunity to file amicus briefs for 

matters taken up 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., 

Omaha Public Power District (Fort Calhoun Station, Unit 1), CLI-15-5, 81 NRC __, __ (Mar. 9, 

2015) (slip op. at 5 n.19) (citing Southern California Edison Co. (San Onofre Nuclear Generating 

Station, Units 2 and 3), CLI-13-9, 78 NRC 551, 556 n.17 (2013)). 
- 4 - 

in the captioned matters to incorporate by reference the Continued Storage GEIS.6

 Without this 

supplementation, Petitioners claim, our final environmental impact statements will not provide 

“complete, accurate, and up-to-date sources of information for members of the public and state 

and local governments.”7

 As discussed below, we find Petitioners’ claims to be without merit.8 

 

6

 Petition at 2 (citing NEPA and 10 C.F.R. pt. 51, app. A). 

7

 Petition at 2 (citing Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 349 (1989)). 

Petitioners also contend that supplementation is necessary to “allow members of the public to 

lodge ... ‘placeholder’ contentions challenging [our] reliance, in individual licensing proceedings, 

on the [Continued Storage] GEIS and [Continued Storage] Rule.” Petition at 2-3. Petitioners 

assert that such contentions would “ensure that if the Court [of Appeals] overturns the 

[Continued Storage] Rule and/or the [Continued Storage] GEIS, NRC licensing decisions that 

rely on them will also be overturned.” Id. at 3. We need not address here Petitioners’ 

assertions concerning either the significance of “placeholder” contentions or their relationship to 

any petitions for review pending before the court of appeals. Petitioners did not include any 

such contentions either in the petition or in the accompanying filings. See, e.g., Petition at 2-3. 

Separately, however, two hearing requests seeking to admit “placeholder” contentions were 

filed before us. See Missouri [Coalition] for the Environment’s Hearing Request and Petition to 

Intervene in License Renewal Proceeding for Callaway Nuclear Power Plant (Dec. 8, 2014) 

(ML14342B010); Missouri [Coalition] for the Environment’s Motion to Reopen the Record of 

License Renewal Proceeding for Callaway Unit 1 Nuclear Power Plant (Dec. 8, 2014) 

(ML14342B011); Beyond Nuclear’s Hearing Request and Petition to Intervene in Combined 

License Proceeding for Fermi Unit 3 Nuclear Power Plant (Feb. 12, 2015) (ML15043A567); 

Beyond Nuclear’s Motion to Reopen the Record of Combined License Proceeding for Fermi Unit 

3 Nuclear Power Plant (Feb. 12, 2015) (ML15043A566). We deny these two requests in 

separate decisions also issued today. See Union Electric Co. (Callaway Plant, Unit 1), CLI-15-

11, 81 NRC __ (Apr. 23, 2015) (slip op.); DTE Electric Co. (Fermi Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 3), 

CLI-15-12, 81 NRC __ (Apr. 23, 2015) (slip op.). Further, three additional hearing requests 

proposing similar placeholder contentions have been filed recently. Southern Alliance for Clean 

Energy’s Motion for Leave to File a New Contention Concerning Reliance by Turkey Point Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement on the Continued Spent Fuel Storage Rule (Apr. 13, 2015) 

(ML15103A468); Southern Alliance for Clean Energy’s Hearing Request and Petition to 

Intervene in Operating License Proceeding for Watts Bar Unit 2 Nuclear Power Plant (Apr. 21, 

2015) (ML15111A356); Nuclear Information and Resource Service’s Hearing Request and 

Petition to Intervene in Combined License Proceeding for Levy County Nuclear Plant (Apr. 22, 

2015) (ML15111A478). These requests will be addressed separately.

8

 The litigants present numerous arguments regarding the procedural propriety of the petition 

now before us. See, e.g., Petition at 6-7; Staff Answer at 4-10; DTE Answer at 5-7. Because 

we find that the petition fails on the merits, we need not address these procedural issues. See, 

e.g., DTE Electric Co. (Fermi Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 3), CLI-15-4, 81 NRC __, __ (Feb. 26, 

(continued . . .) 
- 5 - 

A. Incorporation of Continued Storage Impacts 

Petitioners argue that, despite the plain language of 10 C.F.R. § 51.23, the impact 

determinations from the Continued Storage GEIS are “in fact ... not incorporated into individual 

reactor [final environmental impact statements]” because “the NRC has taken no steps to 

ensure that reactor-specific [final environmental impact statements] ... cross-reference or 

summarize the [Continued Storage] GEIS.”9

 Petitioners argue that our treatment of the 

Continued Storage GEIS does not comport with either NEPA case law or our regulations 

regarding the incorporation of material in environmental impact statements by reference.10 

Specifically, Petitioners express concern that our NEPA process with respect to this issue did 

not appropriately comply with regulations in 10 C.F.R. part 51, appendix A.11 

We find that Petitioners do not present a compelling case to support their arguments. 

Petitioners misread the plain language of 10 C.F.R. § 51.23(b), which states that the 

environmental impacts of continued storage are “deemed incorporated” into the environmental 

impact statements at issue in these proceedings.12 By its terms, 10 C.F.R. § 51.23(b) does not 

contemplate that the environmental impacts in the Continued Storage GEIS will be incorporated 

by reference, as they have already been incorporated into environmental impact statements by 

operation of law. As we stated in the Federal Register notice for the Continued Storage Rule, 

 

2015) (slip op. at 27 n.100) (citing Union Electric Co. d/b/a Ameren Missouri (Callaway Plant, 

Unit 2), CLI-11-5, 74 NRC 141, 158 n.65 (2011)); DTE Electric Co. (Fermi Nuclear Power Plant, 

Unit 3), CLI-14-7, 80 NRC 1, 7 n.22 (2014). 

9

 Petition at 3-4 (emphasis in original) (footnote omitted). 

10 Id. at 7-9. 

11 Id. at 8. 

12 10 C.F.R. § 51.23(b). 
- 6 - 

the Continued Storage GEIS sets forth the environmental impacts of post-licensed life storage 

and “[n]o additional analysis of the impacts of continued storage is required” in site-specific 

NEPA documents.13 

In this instance, we have adopted a specific regulation that supersedes our general 

NEPA regulations in 10 C.F.R. part 51 with respect to the environmental impacts of continued 

storage. Rather than impose additional procedural requirements on the Staff to “incorporate by 

reference” the environmental impacts of continued storage in every reactor licensing and license 

renewal environmental impact statement, we deemed these impacts incorporated into 

environmental impact statements as part of the Continued Storage Rule.14 Thus, as we have 

done in the case of other generic environmental issues, we have adopted a specific procedure 

that governs the consideration of the environmental impacts of continued storage in our initial 

licensing and license renewal NEPA documents.15 It is well-established that specific regulations 

 

13 Continued Storage Rule, 79 Fed. Reg. at 56,243. Absent a waiver, we do not expect the 

NRC Staff to revisit the impact determinations made in the Continued Storage GEIS as part of 

its site-specific NEPA reviews. The “deemed incorporated” function of 10 C.F.R. § 51.23(b) 

provides administrative efficiency by adding the environmental impacts of continued storage to 

site-specific environmental impact statements without additional work by the Staff. But this 

administrative step does not relieve the NRC of the responsibility to fully consider the 

environmental impacts of licensing decisions, including the impacts resulting from the continued 

storage of spent fuel. As discussed below, we expect the Staff to consider the environmental 

impacts of continued storage in the broader context of its site-specific NEPA reviews. Where, 

as here, the final environmental impact statement was issued prior to the issuance of the 

Continued Storage Rule, we expect the Staff to ensure that the environmental impacts of 

continued storage are fully considered in the broader NEPA context for each licensing action 

and to publicly disclose this review. 

14 Continued Storage Rule, 79 Fed. Reg. at 56,243. 

15 See, e.g., NUREG-1437, Rev. 1, Vols. 1-3, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for 

License Renewal of Nuclear Plants—Final Report (June 2013) (ML13106A241, ML13106A242, 

and ML13106A244); Final Rule, Revisions to Environmental Review for Renewal of Nuclear 

Power Plant Operating Licenses, 78 Fed. Reg. 37,281, 37,282-83 (June 20, 2013). 
- 7 - 

(here, the Continued Storage Rule) control over general regulations (here, our general NEPA 

implementing regulations in 10 C.F.R. part 51).16 Because 10 C.F.R. § 51.23(b) prescribes a 

specific procedure for incorporating the environmental impacts of continued storage into a sitespecific analysis, this procedure—rather than a procedure set forth in the general provisions of 

10 C.F.R. part 51—governs our environmental review in this instance. 

B. General NEPA Obligations 

In challenging the Staff’s application of our regulations implementing NEPA, Petitioners 

raise concerns that, at bottom, challenge our compliance with our general obligation under 

NEPA to consider the environmental impacts of major federal actions. The statutory 

requirement to prepare an environmental impact statement serves two purposes.17 First, the 

environmental impact statement ensures that decisionmakers “will have available, and will 

carefully consider, detailed information concerning significant environmental impacts.”18 

Second, the environmental impact statement “guarantees that the relevant information will be 

made available to the larger audience [such as Petitioners and state and local governments] 

that may also play a role in the decisionmaking process.”19 Our approach to assessing the 

environmental impacts of continued storage satisfies both these purposes. 

 

16 See, e.g., RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank, 132 S.Ct. 2065, 2071 (2012); 

Bulova Watch Co. v. United States, 365 U.S. 753, 758 (1961); Toledo Edison Co. (Davis-Besse 

Nuclear Power Station), ALAB-300, 2 NRC 752, 761 (1975) (citing Ginsberg & Sons v. Popkin, 

285 U.S. 204, 208 (1932)).

17 Robertson, 490 U.S. at 349. 

18 Id.

19 Id. 
- 8 - 

With respect to the first purpose—ensuring that we have available for our consideration 

detailed information regarding the environmental impacts of continued storage—we have 

prepared, and approved, a comprehensive generic analysis of those impacts.20 The Staff, in its 

two-year review, prepared a two-volume generic environmental impact statement that provides 

extensive detail regarding the environmental impacts of continued storage.21 To ensure that 

these impacts are considered in individual licensing actions that could implicate continued 

storage, we adopted a rule, 10 C.F.R. § 51.23, that deems these impacts incorporated into sitespecific environmental impact statements.22 

With respect to the second purpose—ensuring that information is made available to 

members of the public and state and local governments—the Staff used a comprehensive 

rulemaking and NEPA process that involved extensive, robust, and meaningful public 

participation. Petitioners claim that, without supplemental environmental impact statements, 

state and local decisionmakers are “deprived of any information regarding the NRC’s current 

analysis of” continued storage.23 The rulemaking record does not bear out Petitioners’ claim. 

The Continued Storage Rule and GEIS were developed through a robust, two-year notice-andcomment process that was one of the most extensive in NRC history and included an extended 

 

20 See Continued Storage GEIS. 

21 Id. The Continued Storage GEIS responds to the three issues identified by the court of 

appeals (spent fuel pool fires, spent fuel pool leaks, and the possibility of a repository never 

becoming available). To fully consider the impacts of a repository never becoming available, 

the Continued Storage GEIS contains a comprehensive analysis of the environmental impacts 

of at-reactor and away-from-reactor storage of spent fuel for three timeframes: 60 years after 

the end of a reactor’s licensed life for operation, an additional 100 years of storage, and the 

indefinite storage of spent nuclear fuel. Id. chs. 4 and 5. 

22 10 C.F.R. § 51.23(b); Continued Storage Rule, 79 Fed. Reg. at 56,243. 

23 Petition at 9. 
- 9 - 

public comment period and thirteen public meetings held at various locations around the 

country.24 Members of the public, including Petitioners and state and local decisionmakers, 

were involved throughout the rulemaking process.25 From the beginning of this process, we 

recognized the importance of public involvement, and we—and the Staff—ensured that 

members of the public had the opportunity to fully participate in this proceeding.26 The NRC 

need not undertake incorporation by reference of the GEIS where, as here, we have already 

taken public comment and performed a comprehensive analysis of the environmental 

consequences of continued spent fuel storage.27 

Further, since the publication of the Continued Storage Rule, the Staff has provided 

public notice of the Continued Storage Rule and GEIS in the context of the NEPA reviews for 

proceedings where the NRC is about to make a final decision. At the time the Continued 

Storage Rule was promulgated, we directed that “the results of the continued storage 

 

24 See, e.g., Continued Storage Rule, 79 Fed. Reg. at 56,253. 

25 See, e.g., Continued Storage GEIS § D.3, List of Unique Comment Authors (noting the many 

individuals and groups who submitted comments during the public comment period for the 

Continued Storage GEIS and Rule). 

26 See, e.g., Calvert Cliffs 3 Nuclear Project, LLC and UniStar Operating Services, LLC (Calvert 

Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 3), CLI-12-16, 76 NRC 63, 67 (2012); Proposed Rule, Proposed 

Waste Confidence Rule and Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement—Public Meetings, 

78 Fed. Reg. 54,789 (Sept. 6, 2013) (announcing plans to hold public meetings at various 

locations around the country). 

27 See Nevada v. Dep’t of Energy, 457 F.3d 78, 90-91 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (declining to direct the 

Department of Energy to revise its final EIS addressing transportation of waste from production 

sources to Yucca Mountain, Nevada, where the EIS did not identify a preferred rail corridor but 

the agency later announced its preference in a Federal Register notice and sought public 

comment; the court observed that to require revision would be a “meaningless gesture” in view 

of the agency’s subsequent disclosure). 
- 10 - 

proceeding must be accounted for before finalizing individual license decisions.”28 In response 

to this direction, the Staff has assessed whether supplementation is needed for final 

environmental impact statements completed before the Continued Storage Rule was 

promulgated.29 Our NEPA implementing regulations at 10 C.F.R. § 51.92 specify that 

supplementation of a final environmental impact statement is required when a final action has 

not been taken and “[t]here are new and significant circumstances or information relevant to 

environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts.”30

Petitioners did not raise the issue of supplementation in their initial petition but contend 

on reply that, “assuming for purposes of argument that [10 C.F.R. § 51.92] does apply here,” the 

vacatur and remand of the Waste Confidence proceeding by the court of appeals in New York v. 

NRC constitutes new and significant information and changed circumstances that necessitate 

supplementation under 10 C.F.R. § 51.92.31 We disagree. As discussed above, no additional 

procedural steps are necessary to add the impacts of continued storage to existing 

environmental impact statements because 10 C.F.R. § 51.23, by its terms, has already done so. 

 Further, the determination of whether information is significant enough to require 

supplementation of an environmental impact statement is not governed by the volume of 

information developed or the significance of the agency effort in developing the information. 

 

28 Calvert Cliffs 3 Nuclear Project, LLC and UniStar Nuclear Operating Services, LLC (Calvert 

Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 3), CLI-14-8, 80 NRC 71, 77 (2014). 

29 See, e.g., “Consideration of New Information Regarding the Impacts of the Continued Storage 

of Spent Fuel for the Fermi Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 3, Combined License Application,” 

(ML14318A477) (Fermi 3 New Information Analysis). 

30 10 C.F.R. § 51.92(a)(2). 

31 Reply at 7-8 (citing New York v. NRC, 681 F.3d 471 (D.C. Cir. 2012)). 
- 11 - 

Rather, the Staff must consider, when finalizing site specific environmental analyses, whether, 

and to what extent, the now-incorporated impacts of continued storage affect the 

recommendations and analyses contained in the final environmental impact statements. 

Undertaking this analysis does not mean that supplementation of the final environmental impact 

statements is automatically required: as we have stated in the past, supplementation “is not 

necessary every time new information comes to light after the [environmental impact statement] 

is finalized.”32

 Supplementation is required when the new information presents “a seriously different 

picture of the environmental impact of the proposed project from what was previously 

envisioned.”33 Here, the vacatur and remand of the 2010 Waste Confidence Decision and 

Temporary Storage Rule, did not, by themselves, automatically trigger the supplementation 

requirements in 10 C.F.R. § 51.92. The relevant question is whether the inclusion of the 

environmental impacts from the Continued Storage GEIS presents “a seriously different picture” 

of the environmental impacts that have been assessed in the relevant licensing action, and of 

our analysis of those impacts, when compared to the previously issued final environmental 

impact statement. As we directed in CLI-14-8, the Staff must account for the environmental 

impacts of continued storage “before finalizing individual licensing decisions,” and, when 

 

32 Hydro Resources, Inc. (P.O. Box 15910, Rio Rancho, NM 87174), CLI-04-39, 60 NRC 657, 

659 (2004) (citing Hydro Resources, Inc. (2929 Coors Road, Suite 101, Albuquerque, NM 

87120), CLI-99-22, 50 NRC 3, 14 (1999)) (internal quotation marks omitted). As the Staff notes, 

“[t]o warrant supplementation, ‘new information’ must paint a ‘seriously different picture of the 

environmental landscape.’” Staff Answer at 8-9 (citing Luminant Generation Co. LLC 

(Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant, Units 3 and 4), CLI-12-7, 75 NRC 379, 388-89 (2012); 

Nat’l Comm. for the New River, Inc. v. FERC, 373 F.3d 1323, 1330 (D.C. Cir. 2004)). 

33 Hydro Resources, CLI-04-39, 60 NRC at 659 (quoting Hydro Resources, CLI-99-22, 50 NRC 

at 4).
- 12 - 

appropriate circumstances exist, we expect that the question of whether or not to prepare a 

supplemental final environmental impact statement to be part of that analysis.34 In general, the 

environmental impact statements associated with our reactor licensing actions provide 

comprehensive analyses of the environmental impacts of the proposed actions, including 

storage of spent fuel, for the license term.35 The Staff’s assessment of the environmental 

impacts of continued storage (impacts that occur after the end of the license term) constitutes 

just one component of the assessment of many impacts associated with these proposed 

actions.36 Nevertheless, the supplementation analysis must be conducted on a proceedingspecific basis to ensure that the unique circumstances of each proceeding (e.g., the scope of 

the analysis, the procedural posture, any balancing of costs and benefits and evaluation of 

alternatives, etc.) are appropriately considered to determine whether supplementation or other 

appropriate action is required. 

 For example, the Staff has conducted such an analysis for the Fermi combined license 

proceeding, in which it analyzed the environmental impacts of continued storage in the context 

of the Fermi environmental review; the Staff made its analysis publicly available in December 

 

34 Calvert Cliffs, CLI-14-8, 80 NRC at 77. 

35 See, e.g., NUREG-1947, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Combined 

Licenses (COLs) for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 3 and 4 (Mar. 2011) 

(ML11076A010); NUREG-1437, Supp. 30, Vols. 1 & 2, Generic Environmental Impact 

Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants: Regarding Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power 

Station (Aug. 2007) (ML072050012 and ML072050013). 

36 See, e.g., Continued Storage GEIS § 4.3 (“The environmental analysis in [the Continued 

Storage] GEIS fulfills a small part of the NRC’s NEPA obligation with respect to the [initial 

license] or [license renewal review] of a nuclear reactor or spent fuel storage facility.”); id. 

§ D.2.2.5 (“The [Continued Storage] GEIS and [Continued Storage] Rule will not be used to 

address the impacts of spent fuel storage during a proposed license term. The impacts of 

storage during a proposed license term ... would be subject to the safety and environmental 

review [that is] part of that review.”). 
- 13 - 

2014.37 Such an analysis complies with our direction that “the results of the continued storage 

proceeding must be accounted for before finalizing individual licensing decisions.”38 In 

recognition of our NEPA obligations, we expect the Staff, when considering continued storage in 

licensing reviews with previously-completed final environmental impact statements, to use a 

consistent and transparent process to ensure that all stakeholders are aware of how the 

environmental impacts of continued storage are considered in each licensing action affected by 

10 C.F.R. § 51.23. 

III. CONCLUSION 

In light of these considerations, we deny the petition. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 For the Commission 

NRC SEAL /RA/ 

 ___________________________ 

 Annette L. Vietti-Cook 

 Secretary of the Commission 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, 

this 23rd day of April, 2015 

 

37 Fermi 3 New Information Analysis. 

38 Calvert Cliffs, CLI-14-8, 80 NRC at 77. 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

In the Matter of ) 

 ) 

LUMINANT GENERATION COMPANY, LLC ) Docket Nos. 52-034-COL 

 ) and 52-035-COL 

 ) 

 ) 

(Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant, ) 

Units 3 and 4) ) 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

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

(CLI-15-10) 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

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Office of the Secretary of the Commission 

Rulemakings & Adjudications Staff 

Mail Stop O-16C1 

Washington, DC 20555-0001 

E-mail: hearingdocket@nrc.gov

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel 

Mail Stop T-3F23 

Washington, DC 20555-0001 

Ann Marshall Young, Chairman 

Administrative Judge 

E-mail: ann.young@nrc.gov

Gary S. Arnold 

Administrative Judge 

E-mail: gary.arnold@nrc.gov

Alice C. Mignerey 

Administrative Judge 

E-mail: alice.mignerey@nrc.gov

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Office of the General Counsel 

Mail Stop - O-15 D21 

Washington, DC 20555-0001 

Laura Goldin, Esq. 

Sara Kirkwood, Esq. 

Michael Spencer, Esq. 

Patrick Moulding, Esq. 

Jody Martin, Esq. 

Richard Harper, Esq. 

Lisa London, Esq. 

Susan Vrahoretis, Esq. 

E-mail: 

michael.spencer@nrc.gov

laura.goldin@nrc.gov

sara.Kirkwood@nrc.gov

patrick.moulding@nrc.gov

Jody.martin@nrc.gov

richard.harper@nrc.gov 

lisa.london@nrc.gov

susan.vrahoretis@nrc.gov

 
Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant, Units 3 and 4 - Docket Nos. 52-034-COL & 52-035-COL 

COMMISSION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (CLI-15-10) 

2 

Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP 

1111 Pennsylvania Ave., NW 

Washington, DC 20004 

Stephen Burdick, Esq. 

Steven P. Frantz, Esq. 

Timothy P. Matthews, Esq. 

Martin O’Neill, Esq. 

Jane Accomando, Esq. 

Mary L. Freeze, Legal Secretary 

Audrea Salters, Legal Secretary 

E-mail: sburdick@morganlewis.com

sfrantz@morganlewis.com; 

tmatthews@morganlewis.com

martin.oneill@morganlewis.com

jaccomando@morganlewis.com

mfreeze@morganlewis.com

asalters@morganlewis.com

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP 

2300 N. Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20037-1122 

Counsel for Progress Energy 

Jason B. Parker, Esq. 

Matias F.Travieso-Diaz, Esq. 

Maria D. Webb, Senior Energy Legal 

Analyst/Paralegal Coordinator 

E-mail: 

jason.parker@pillsburylaw.com

matias.travieso-diaz@pillsburylaw.com

maria.webb@pillsburylaw.com

True Cost of Nukes 

1067 W. Magnolia 

Fort Worth, TX 76014 

John N. Fischer 

E-mail: jnilefischer@sbcglobal.net

Sustainable Energy & Economic Development 

 (SEED) Coalition 

1303 San Antonio #100 

Austin, Texas 78701 

Eliza Brown, Clean Energy Advocate 

E-mail: eliza.seedcoalition@gmail.com

Sustainable Energy and Economic 

Development (SEED) Coalition 

Robert V. Eye, Esq. 

April Middleton, Assistant 

Kauffman & Eye 

112 SW 6th Avenue, Suite 202 

Topeka, Kansas 66603 

E-mail: bob@kauffmaneye.com

E-mail: april@kauffmaneye.com

 

 [Original signed by Herald M. Speiser ] 

 Office of the Secretary of the Commission 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, 

this 23rd day of April, 2015