Posted on 06/12/2006 6:37:01 AM PDT by kidd
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has ruled that the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) obligates the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to consider the environmental impact of potential terrorist attacks when conducting environmental reviews.
The June 2 decision could affect the NRC’s decision-making processes for other nuclear facilities, and it could have far-reaching effects on decisions affecting other facilities in the nation’s infrastructure, observers say.
In December 2001, Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) applied to the NRC for a license to build and operate an on-site dry storage facility for used nuclear fuel at its Diablo Canyon nuclear plant. After the commission granted the license, the San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace (SLOMFP), a California-based policy group, petitioned the appeals court to review the agency’s decision.
SLOMFP, joined by the Sierra Club and individual petitioner Peg Pinard, contended that the NRC did not comply with NEPA’s requirements to study the environmental consequences of a potential terrorist attack before granting a license to PG&E.
Citing legal precedents, the NRC argued that NEPA should not apply because the possibility of a terrorist attack is too far removed from “natural or expected consequences” to require such analysis.
The NRC also contended that such study is likely to be meaningless, given that the risk of an attack cannot be determined and that NEPA does not require a “worst-case” analysis. The agency also argued that NEPA’s public process is not an appropriate forum for matters of security.
However, the appeals court ruled that “none of the four factors upon which the NRC relies to eschew consideration of the environmental effect of a terrorist attack satisfied the standard of reasonableness.” Although this particular case involves a dry-storage facility, the industry believes this decision could have far-ranging negative consequences because it would mandate that the NRC consider the possible environmental impacts of terrorist attacks against a wide range of nuclear facilities as part of its NEPA analysis.
Legal experts also believe that other federal agencies now might interpret the ruling to believe that they, too, must consider the environmental impact of potential terrorist attacks before granting construction permits for other potential terrorist targets, such as dams, refineries and liquefied natural gas terminals.
Online activity indicates that the court’s decision has garnered the attention of other anti-nuclear groups, including the Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility (A4NR).
According to one activist’s Web post, “This is a way to stop all on-site dry cask storage.” A4NR also has issued a statement saying that it will team up with the Sierra Club and take up the fight against PG&E’s rate request.
NEI, which participated in the case as amicus curiae, said that the NRC correctly characterized the impacts of potential terrorist attacks on facilities as beyond the purview of NEPA and not an appropriate part of environmental analyses the commission conducts.The industry has taken significant steps in recent years to increase security at nuclear facilities nationwide “Since the September 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, the commercial nuclear industry has spent more than $1.2 billion strengthening security at what already were recognized as the best-defended facilities in the nation’s industrial infrastructure— a status that nuclear plants still have,” said NEI Chief Nuclear Officer Marv Fertel.
“Since 2001,” he added, “the industry has increased its security forces by 60 percent, added robust vehicle barriers, tightened plant access controls, moved security perimeters farther from plant buildings and added bullet-resistant enclosures for defense of the plants.”
Why not just cut to the chase and handout free treadmills hooked up to power generators for all households.
At first I thought they were going to license the terrorists. But that idea makes too much sense.
I can see where this could impact anything that might be a terrorist target. Nuclear plants, oil refineries, chemical plants, new airports.
I would argue that the constuction of nuclear power plants takes money away from Islamic nations and their fundamentalists. Fundamentalists that don't have money cannot fund a terror war. Therefore the construction of nuclear power plants reduces the terrorist-induced environmental impact.
Well you made a good point. Do we need to consider the environmental impact that a terror-rich target might generate?
For example, a public school by itself has very little environmental impact. But now that we must consider what a terrorist might do to it, then its a whole new ballgame. Public schools are thought to be likely targets for terrorism. Therefore, they are likely locations for the use of a dirty bomb.
This can get real goofy.
Don't laugh. You've just produced the "executive summary" of a 5,000 page study costing $8.3 Million which takes at least 10 years to put together by a think tank.
Well, at first I was elated. "Boy, that'll slow down those terrorist attacks!" was what I thought.
Having to write an environmental impact statement would really take the wind out of their sales.
And then I realized... Illegal terrorists would just appear and do the work that licensed terrorists weren't willing to do.
(/Sarcasm)
How about an impact study of the terrorist act itself absent the nuclear facility? And how about an impact study of the trucks that drive the stuff to the facility? And how about an impact study of the carbon expenditure of the environmental lawyers who are driving their soy mobiles to the court house to argue these highly unlikely scenarios?
[if not for the 9th circus, SCOTUS would only need to be in session two months a year - at most]
It's the 9th...they rule and then they are overuled. it is part of the game.
What an unfortunate acronym.
Just ignore it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.