Opinion ID: 801892
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Temporary On-Site Storage of SNF

Text: In concluding that SNF can safely be stored in on-site storage pools for a period of sixty years after the end of a plant’s life, instead of thirty, the Commission conducted what it purports to be an EA, which found that extending the time for storage would have no significant environmental impact. See Waste Confidence Decision Update, 75 Fed. Reg. at 81,074. This analysis was conducted in generic fashion by looking to environmental risks across the board at nuclear plants, rather than by conducting a site-by-site analysis of each specific nuclear plant. Two key risks the Commission examined in its 14 EA were the risk of environmental harm due to pool leakage and the risk of a fire resulting from the fuel rods becoming exposed to air. See id. at 81,069–71. We conclude that the Commission’s EA and resulting FONSI are not supported by substantial evidence on the record because the Commission failed to properly examine the risk of leaks in a forward-looking fashion and failed to examine the potential consequences of pool fires.
Petitioners challenge the finding of no significant impact on two bases: First, petitioners argue that a generic analysis is simply inappropriate and that the Commission was required to look at each plant individually. A site-by-site analysis is necessary, petitioners argue, because the risks of leaks and fires are affected by site-specific factors such as pool configuration, leak detection systems, the nature of SNF stored in the pool, and the location of the pool within the plant. Overall, petitioners argue that NEPA requires the Commission to fully analyze the environmental effects of on-site storage, and a generic analysis cannot fulfill that statutory mandate. Second, petitioners argue that even if generic analysis is appropriate, the Commission’s generic EA in this case was insufficient. They maintain that the Commission did not adequately account for leaks from on-site pools because the Commission only looked at past leaks to see if they caused environmental damage, rather than examining the risks of future leaks. Also, as petitioners point out, the Commission’s own studies have shown that previous leaks “did, or potentially could, impact ground-water resources relative to established EPA drinking water standards.” NRC, Liquid Radioactive Release Lessons Learned Task Force Final Report 13 (2006). Petitioners also argue that the Commission’s analysis of the 15 effects of pool fires was deficient because the Commission declined to examine the consequences of pool fires due to the low probability of such an occurrence. In petitioners’ view, the Commission could only avoid examining the consequences of pool fires in a full EIS if it found the risk so low as to be “remote and speculative”—a finding the Commission did not make. Finally, Petitioners contend that the Commission completely failed to look at non-health environmental factors such as effects on the Prairie Island Indian Community’s homeland, which is located near one of the plants governed by the rule. The Commission responds by stating that its examination of past leaks properly demonstrated that the potential for environmental harm from leakage is negligible. The Commission argues that the effects of past leaks have been shown to be quite minimal, and the Commission’s leakage task force has recommended twenty-six specific measures to minimize the risk even further. Also, the NRC exercises oversight over the pools and will ensure that they do not become unsafe over the sixty-year period. With regard to fires, the Commission contends that it engaged in an “exhaustive consideration” of the risk and found that such an event is extremely unlikely. In the Commission’s view, a site-by-site analysis of pool-fire risk is unnecessary because the Commission relied on studies which accounted for all of the variations cited by petitioners and essentially looked at the most dangerous combinations of site-specific factors. Even looking to a worst-case scenario, the Commission says, the risk of fires was still extremely low. Responding to petitioners’ argument that the Commission failed to determine that the risk of fires was “remote and speculative,” the Commission suggests that it did not dismiss the risk out of hand as “remote and speculative” but rather examined 16 it thoroughly and found it to be so low that the consequences could not possibly overcome the low probability. Therefore, the Commission did not need to conduct a full EIS for pool fires. Finally, the Commission argues that petitioners did not raise the issue of non-health impacts during the rulemaking, and thus they cannot raise that issue on petition now.
Both the Supreme Court and this court have endorsed the Commission’s longstanding practice of considering environmental issues through general rulemaking in appropriate circumstances. See, e.g., Baltimore Gas, 462 U.S. at 100 (“The generic method chosen by the agency is clearly an appropriate method of conducting the hard look required by NEPA.”); see also Minnesota, 602 F.2d at 416–17. Though Baltimore Gas dealt with the nuclear fuel cycle itself, which is generally focused on things that occur outside of individual plants, we see no reason that a comprehensive general analysis would be insufficient to examine on-site risks that are essentially common to all plants. This is particularly true given the Commission’s use of conservative bounding assumptions and the opportunity for concerned parties to raise site-specific differences at the time of a specific site’s licensing. Nonetheless, whether the analysis is generic or site-by-site, it must be thorough and comprehensive. Even though the Commission’s application of its technical expertise demands the “most deferential” treatment by the courts, Baltimore Gas, 462 U.S. at 103, we conclude that the Commission has failed to conduct a thorough enough analysis here to merit our deference.
The Commission admits in the WCD Update that there have been “several incidents of groundwater contamination 17 originating from leaking reactor spent fuel pools and associated structures.” 75 Fed. Reg. at 81,070. The Commission brushes away that concern by stating that the past leaks had only a negligible near-term health impact. Id. at 81,071. Even setting aside the fact that near-term health effects are not the only type of environmental impacts, the harm from past leaks—without more—tells us very little about the potential for future leaks or the harm such leaks might portend. The WCD Update seeks to extend the period of time for which pools are considered safe for storage; therefore, a proper analysis of the risks would necessarily look forward to examine the effects of the additional time in storage, as well as examining past leaks in a manner that would allow the Commission to rule out the possibility that those leaks were only harmless because of site-specific factors or even sheer luck. The WCD Update has no analysis of those possibilities other than to say that past leaks had “negligible” near-term health effects. Id. A study of the impact of thirty additional years of SNF storage must actually concern itself with the extra years of storage. The Commission also notes that a taskforce has made recommendations for improvements to spent-fuel pools, which the NRC “has addressed, or is in the process of addressing.” Id. But those improvements are thus far untested, and we have no way of deferring to the Commission’s conclusion that they will ensure the absence of environmental harm. Finally, the Commission refers to its monitoring and regulatory compliance program as a buffer against pool degradation. Id. That argument is even less availing because it amounts to a conclusion that leaks will not occur because the NRC is “on duty.” With full credit to the Commission’s considerable enforcement and inspection efforts, merely pointing to the compliance program is in no way sufficient to support a scientific finding that spent-fuel pools will not cause a significant environment impact during the extended storage 18 period. This is particularly true when the period of time covered by the Commission’s predictions may extend to nearly a century for some facilities. Despite giving our “most deferential” treatment to the Commission’s application of its technical and scientific expertise, we cannot reconcile a finding that past leaks have been harmless with a conclusion that future leaks at all sites will be harmless as well. The Commission’s task here was to determine whether the pools could be considered safe for an additional thirty years in the future. That past leaks have not been harmful with respect to groundwater does not speak to whether and how future leaks might occur, and what the effects of those leaks might be. The Commission’s analysis of leaks, therefore, was insufficient.
Even though the Commission engaged in a more substantial analysis of fires than it did of leaks, that analysis is plagued by a failure to examine the consequences of pool fires in addition to the probabilities. Petitioners, citing Limerick Ecology Action, Inc. v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 869 F.2d 719, 739 (3d Cir. 1989), argue that the Commission could only avoid conducting an EIS if it found the risk of fires to be “remote and speculative.” The Commission, citing Carolina Environmental Study Group v. United States, 510 F.2d at 799, argues that it did not need to examine the consequences of fires because it found the risk of fires to be very low. We disagree with both parties. As should be clear by this point in our opinion, an agency conducting an EA generally must examine both the probability of a given harm occurring and the consequences of that harm if it does occur. Only if the harm in question is so “remote and speculative” as to reduce the 19 effective probability of its occurrence to zero may the agency dispense with the consequences portion of the analysis. See Limerick Ecology Action, Inc., 869 F.2d at 739. But, contra petitioners, the finding that the probability of a given harm is nonzero does not, by itself, mandate an EIS: after the agency examines the consequences of the harm in proportion to the likelihood of its occurrence, the overall expected harm could still be insignificant and thus could support a FONSI. See Carolina Envtl. Study Grp., 510 F.2d at 799 (“Recognition of the minimal probability of such an event is not equatable with nonrecognition of its consequences.”). Here, however, the Commission did not undertake to examine the consequences of pool fires at all. Depending on the weighing of the probability and the consequences, an EIS may or may not be required, and such a determination would merit considerable deference. C.f., City of New York, 715 F.2d at 751–52 (deferring to an agency’s weighing of a “catastrophic” harm against an “infinitesimal probability”). But unless the risk is “remote and speculative,” the Commission must put the weights on both sides of the scale before it can make a determination.
As for petitioners’ remaining argument that the Commission did not consider non-health environmental effects, we agree with the Commission that petitioners did not properly raise those issues in the rulemaking. Petitioners essentially present two non-health impacts: decrease in property values and risk of harm to the Prairie Island Indian Community’s homeland. The Tribe did mention its small size and close proximity to the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, but it did not assert specifically how it might be harmed by either the rulemaking itself or the licensing the rulemaking enables. With regard to property values, petitioners point to a study considering the economic impact of the Indian Point plant. But that study actually 20 assumes a diminution in values caused by current plant operation and simply extends it mathematically—it in no way asserts whether or how any harm to property values might occur nor how that harm is related to a change in the physical environment. Petitioners’ failure to raise these objections to the agency waives them. See Public Citizen, 541 U.S. at 764. We note, as did the Supreme Court in Public Citizen, that primary responsibility for compliance with NEPA lies with the Commission, not petitioners; nonetheless, the non-health effects alluded to here are not “so obvious that there is no need for a commentator to point them out.” Id. Given, however, that we are invalidating the Commission’s conclusions as a whole, petitioners will have the opportunity to properly raise and clarify these concerns on remand.