Opinion ID: 204775
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Contention 2 (Early Fatalities, Latent Health/Land Contamination)

Text: As part of Contention 2, SLOMFP alleges that the NRC screened out attacks that would not cause early fatalities, thereby excluding scenarios that would cause land degradation or non-fatal illness. [6] In the proceedings, the Commission rejected Contention 2's screening argument and admitted petitioner's concerns about land degradation and non-fatal illness. See CLI-08-1 at 17-18. [7] SLOMFP's early fatalities screening argument is not persuasive. That the SEA only provided one indicator of adverse outcomes does not establish, as SLOMFP posits, that the Staff screened out attacks that would not cause immediate fatalities. As the NRC explained, the SEA mentions early fatalities only in the context of the consideration of the need for additional security measures and . . . goes on to provide dose estimates and other findings in support of its determination. CLI-08-1 at 18. [8] Indeed, the SEA expressly states that the NRC screened plausible threat scenarios on the basis of information from law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Staff confirmed this at oral argument, assuring the Commission that credibility of attacks, not early fatalities, was the screening criterion. The Commission did not abuse its discretion when it rejected petitioner's argument that the EA improperly screened its analysis using an early fatalities criterion.