ML22195A092
| ML22195A092 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, 07007001 |
| Issue date: | 07/07/2022 |
| From: | Lodge T, Taylor W Beyond Nuclear, Law Office of Terry J. Lodge, Law Offices of Wallace L. Taylor, Ohio Nuclear Free Network (ONFN) |
| To: | NRC/OGC, US Federal Judiciary, Court of Appeals, for the District of Columbia Circuit |
| References | |
| 1953998, 21-1162 | |
| Download: ML22195A092 (35) | |
Text
USCA Case #21-1162 Document #1953998 Filed: 07/07/2022 Page 1 of 35
ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED
Case No. 21-1162
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
OHIO NUCLEAR-FREE NETWORK and BEYOND NUCLEAR, Petitioners,
v.
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION and the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondents
On Petition for Review of Action by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
PETITIONERS FINAL REPLY BRIEF
Terry J. Lodge, Esq. Wallace L. Taylor, Esq.
316 N. Michigan St., Suite 520 Law Offices of Wallace L. Taylor Toledo, OH 43604-5627 4403 1st Ave. S.E., Suite 402 (419) 205-7084 Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52402 Fax: (419) 932-6625 319-366-2428 Emails: tjlodge50@yahoo.com Fax: 319-366-3886 lodgelaw@yahoo.com E-mail: wtaylorlaw@aol.com
Co-Counsel for Petitioners USCA Case #21-1162 Document #1953998 Filed: 07/07/2022 Page 2 of 35
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ii
GLOSSARY iv
SUMMARY
OF ARGUMENT 1
ARGUMENT 2
I. Petitioners are Proper Parties to Bring This Action Pursuant to NEPA 2
II. The NRC Violated NEPA By Issuance of the EA/FONSI instead of compiling an Environmental Impact Statement 10 A. Terrorism Is A Legitimate Aspect Of NEPA Analysis 13 B. Nuclear Proliferation Has Long Been Of Concern Under NEPA 16 C. The NRC Has A Central Role In U.S. Nonproliferation Policy 19 D. Petitioners Described Impacts On Domestic Uranium Supply Chain 22
III. The NRC Should Be Required to Prepare an EIS or Programmatic EIS for the ACO License Amendment Application 23
CONCLUSION 27
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 29
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 29
PETITIONERS DESIGNATION OF ITEMS FOR INCLUSION IN DEFERRED APPENDIX 30
-i-USCA Case #21-1162 Document #1953998 Filed: 07/07/2022 Page 3 of 35
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Judicial Decisions Page Society of Southern Vermont, Inc. v. Secretary of Transportation, (Conservation Society I), 508 F.2d 927 (2d Cir. 1974),
vacated and remanded, 423 U.S. 809, 96 S.Ct. 19, 46 L.Ed.2d 29, 44 U.S.L.W. 3199 (1975) 26 Department of Transportation v. Public Citizen, 541 U.S. 752, 770, 124 S.Ct. 2204 (2004) 19,21, 22 Indian Lookout Alliance v. Volpe, 484 F.2d 11 (8th Cir. 1973) 26 Jones v. Lynn, 477 F.2d 885, 891 (1st Cir. 1973) 26 Metropolitan Edison Co. v. People Against Nuclear Energy, 460 U.S.
766, 103 S.Ct. 1556 (1983) 14 Natl. Comm. For the New River v. FERC, 373 F.3d 1323 (D.C. Cir. 2004) 5 Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Com'n, 539 F.2d 824, 841-842 (2nd Cir. 1976) 26 Nevada v. DOE, 457 F.3d 78, 92 (D.C.Cir. 2006) 27 New Jersey Dept of Envtl. Prot. v. NRC, 561 F.3d 132 (3rd Cir. 2009) 13,14,15 NRDC v. NRC, 647 F.2d 1345 (D.C. Cir. 1981) 16 San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. NRC, 449 F.3d 1016 (9th Cir.
2006) 13,15 Scientists Institute for Public Information, Inc. v. AEC, 481 F.2d 1079 (D.C. Cir. 1973) 16,26 Sierra Club v. Morton, 169 U.S.App.D.C. 20, 514 F.2d 856 (1975) cert. granted, 423 U.S. 1047, 96 S.Ct. 772, 46 L.Ed.2d 635, 44 U.S.L.W. 3397 (1976) 26 Vermont Dept of Pub. Serv. v. U.S., 684 F.3d 149 (D.C. Cir. 2012) 3,4,8
Administrative Decisions Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corp. (Amendment Request for Decommissioning of the Newfield, New Jersey Facility), LBP-07-5, 65 NRC 341, 352 (2007) 6
Statutes 28 U.S.C. § 2342 2 28 U.S.C. § 2344 2 42 U.S.C. § 2077(c)(2)8 28
-ii-USCA Case #21-1162 Document #1953998 Filed: 07/07/2022 Page 4 of 35
42 U.S.C. § 2099 28 42 U.S.C. § 2153 19,21 42 U.S.C. § 2239 2 42 U.S.C. § 4331(a) 26 42 U.S.C. § 4332 17
Regulations 10 CFR § 2.309 2,3,5,7 10 CFR § 2.326 7 10 CFR § 2.341(f)(2) 4 10 CFR § 75.1 20 10 CFR § 75.8 21 10 CFR § 75.10 20 10 CFR § 75.11 21 10 CFR § 75.32 20 10 CFR § 75.34 20 10 CFR § 75.35 20 10 CFR § 75.43 20 40 CFR § 1501.4(b) 3 40 CFR § 1506(6) 3
Treatises Robinson, Extraterritorial Environmental Protection Obligations of Foreign Affairs Agencies: The Unfulfilled Mandate of NEPA, 7 N.Y.U. Intl L. &
Pol. 257, 270 (1974) 18 Uranium Mining: Nuclear Powers Dirty Secret, www.pembina.org 23
-iii-USCA Case #21-1162 Document #1953998 Filed: 07/07/2022 Page 5 of 35
GLOSSARY
Addendum - Petitioners Addendum of Statutes, Regulations and Standing Declarations AEA - Atomic Energy Act APA - Administrative Procedure Act Apx - Appendix to the Briefs CEQ - Council on Environmental Quality DOE - Department of Energy EA - Environmental Assessment EIS - Environmental Impact Statement Idx - Certified Index (administrative record index)
NEPA - National Environmental Policy Act NRC - Nuclear Regulatory Commission ONFN - Ohio Nuclear Free Network Programmatic EIS - Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Uranium-235 or U-235 - A naturally-occurring isotope of Uranium
-iv-USCA Case #21-1162 Document #1953998 Filed: 07/07/2022 Page 6 of 35
SUMMARY
OF ARGUMENT
Petitioners are parties aggrieved as required by the Hobbs Act. Respondents
cannot force Petitioners NEPA claim into the NRCs adjudicatory process. First,
NEPA provides for participation in the NEPA process through public comment.
The NRCs attempt to force the NEPA claims into an adjudicatory process would
allow the NRC to ignore public comment. Second, the NRCs glowing description
of its adjudicatory process grows dark when one understands the reality of how
the process makes it virtually impossible for the public to participate.
The NRCs environmental assessment is insufficient in this case. Three
issues require the preparation of an EIS: likelihood of terrorist attacks at the
Piketon site; nuclear proliferation; and increased uranium mining resulting from
enriching uranium. There is clear authority requiring that these issues be addressed
in an EIS.
Pertinent case law shows that if the activity being licensed by the NRC
creates a proximate cause to attract terrorism, then terrorism must be addressed in
an EIS. Likewise, nuclear proliferation has long been an issue the NRC must
address. Here, a new type of enriched uranium would be produced in this country
and would be the impetus for nuclear proliferation. Finally, the purpose of this
proposed project is to commencedevelopment of the next generation of nuclear
USCA Case #21-1162 Document #1953998 Filed: 07/07/2022 Page 7 of 35
reactors, keeping uranium mining as a viable industry even as conventional
nuclear reactors are being closed.
A Programmatic EIS must be prepared in this case. This license amendment
is the first step in a planned multi-year program which, although a DOE program,
will occur under the licensing authority of the NRC. The NRC cannot
conveniently try to limit the review of the project to the initial licensing of the
demonstration project.
ARGUMENT
I. PETITIONERS ARE PROPER PARTIES TO BRING THIS ACTION PURSUANT TO NEPA.
All parties agree that the procedure for this case and the Courts jurisdiction
to entertain the Petition for Review is the Hobbs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2342, 2344. The
Hobbs Act grants the right to judicial review to parties aggrieved. The Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC), Respondent, maintains the Petitioners are not
parties aggrieved because they did not seek to intervene and request a hearing
from the NRC, pursuant to NRC regulation 10 CFR § 2.309. Respondent argues
that the 10 CFR § 2.309 procedure is required by § 189 of the Atomic Energy Act
(AEA), 42 U.S.C. § 2239. Petitioners allege a violation of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and maintain that nothing in § 189 mandates
USCA Case #21-1162 Document #1953998 Filed: 07/07/2022 Page 8 of 35
that NEPA requirements be addressed solely within the § 2.309 hearing
proceeding.
Section 189 of the AEA states, pertinently:
In any proceeding under this chapter, for the granting... of any license..., the Commission shall grant a hearing upon the request of any person whose interest may be affected by the proceeding, and shall admit any such person as a party to such proceeding.
42 U.S.C. § 2239. Nothing in that language requires NEPA issues to be restricted
to the § 2.309 hearing procedure, and more important, nothing abrogates or
supersedes the public participation provisions of the NEPA regulations as
promulgated by the Council on Environmental Quality. See, 40 CFR §§ 1501.4(b),
1506(6).
The Respondents cite the case of Vermont Dept of Pub. Serv. v. U.S., 684
F.3d 149 (D.C. Cir. 2012) for the proposition that a petitioner cannot bypass
agency procedures for presenting its claims. But Vermont does not support the
Respondents argument; instead, it reinforces the Petitioners position. In
Vermont, the petitioners claimed that the NRC, in considering the amendment of a
nuclear power reactor license, did not ensure that the applicant had complied with
a requirement of the Clean Water Act for a state water quality certification. The
problem in that case was that the petitioners had made no effort whatsoever to
USCA Case #21-1162 Document #1953998 Filed: 07/07/2022 Page 9 of 35
raise the water quality certification issue until after the NRC had issued the
amended permit.
The D.C. Circuit Court explored Petitioners options in Vermont, id. at 157:
[Petitioners] could have petitioned the Commission for interlocutory review of the Boards denial of their Late Contention/Request to Amend pursuant to 10 C.F.R § 2.341(f)(2). Or they could have filed a new, separate contention limited to their section 401 objection either immediately after the Boards denial... or upon discovering that neither the Draft nor the Final SEIS mentioned a section 401 WQC.... Or they could have submitted a comment for the Commissions review in response to the December 2006 Draft SEIS.... (emphasis added).
Thus, the Vermont panel established that filing a petition to intervene in an
adjudicatory hearing under the Atomic Energy Act is not the only way to become a
party to an NRC proceeding. The petitioners could have submitted comments on
the draft environmental impact statement. That is exactly what the Petitioners did
here: they offered comments on the NEPA document being drafted by the agency.
The Petitioners comments gave the agency the opportunity to correct [its] own
errors, affording parties and courts the benefits of [the agencys] expertise, and
compiling a record adequate for judicial review. Id. at 158.
Contrary to its refusal to consider the Petitioners extensive comment letter,
the NRC now argues that without an adjudicatory hearing, there is no record to
review. Fed. Resp. Br. at 25. But there is a record for review, namely, Petitioners
USCA Case #21-1162 Document #1953998 Filed: 07/07/2022 Page 10 of 35
comment letter. That is the nature of the administrative record in any NEPA case.
See, e.g., Natl. Comm. For the New River v. FERC, 373 F.3d 1323 (D.C. Cir.
2004). An agency prepares its NEPA documentation and makes it available for
public input. The agency is then supposed to consider the public input and prepare
the NEPA document based on its consideration of public comments. In this case,
the NRC did not consider Petitioners comments at all, apparently taking the
position that it did not have to, since Petitioners had not sought to intervene and
request an adjudicatory hearing.
Centrus maintains that requiring the Petitioners to request an adjudicatory
hearing would allow the Petitioners to better present their case and provide a more
thorough record. Fed. Resp. Br. at 25. This is a ruse. It is important for the Court
to understand how the NRCs regulation that governs hearings, 10 CFR § 2.309,
works in reality. The process starts with the applicant for a license submitting its
application, accompanied by an environmental report and a safety analysis report.
A prospective intervenor then has only 60 days to review the hundreds of pages of
documents submitted by the applicant; determine what contentions should be
submitted; find, consult with, and obtain extensive written opinions from expert
witnesses; and prepare detailed contentions to be submitted with the request to
intervene.
USCA Case #21-1162 Document #1953998 Filed: 07/07/2022 Page 11 of 35
If the intervenor successfully crosses those hurdles, it must then meet the
strict by design standard for admissibility of contentions, memorialized in
Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corp. (Amendment Request for Decommissioning of
the Newfield, New Jersey Facility), LBP-07-5, 65 NRC 341, 352 (2007). What
this should mean is that a petitioner must show facts and issues to minimally form
a basis for supporting the contention. What it means in reality is that a petitioner
must posit an extensive claim, supported by detailed facts and expert opinion,
which embodies all possible information known to the petitioner on the date the
petition is filed. It also means that a petitioner is charged with knowing every
word in the hundreds of pages of documentation submitted by the license
applicant to ensure that the contention takes proper issue with the documentation.
Furthermore, the petitioner is presumed to have reviewed and to have acquired
intimate knowledge of every document referenced in the license applicants
documentation. Finally, the petitioner is required to have intimate knowledge of
information that is does not appear in the license applicants documentation nor is
referenced in that documentation, but which nonetheless exists in the public
domain.
The upshot is that it is extremely difficult, if not virtually impossible, for a
petitioner to surmount the barriers to intervention. The Atomic Energy Acts
USCA Case #21-1162 Document #1953998 Filed: 07/07/2022 Page 12 of 35
supposed right to a hearing is illusory, especially with respect to NEPA issues.
From the outset of, and throughout much of the contention pleading process, it is
typical for the NRC to have not yet prepared an EA or EIS for a project. So a
petitioners contentions must be directed at the applicants environmental report,
which is not the agencys NEPA document. Sometimes, the adjudicatory
proceeding is terminated before the EIS or EA is even published. Although NRC
regulations, 10 CFR §§ 2.309© and 2.326, provide for filing new contentions once
the EA or EIS is published, and for reopening the adjudicatory proceeding, that
right, too, is illusory. In order to file a new contention based on the NRC NEPA
document, § 2.309© requires that the petitioner show that:
(I) The information upon which the filing is based was not previously available; (ii) The information upon which the filing is based is materially different from information previously available; and (iii) The filing has been submitted in a timely fashion based on the availability of the subsequent information.
Then, in order to reopen a closed adjudicatory proceeding, § 2.326 requires
that:
(a)(1) The motion must be timely. However, an exceptionally grave issue may be considered in the discretion of the presiding officer even if untimely presented; (2) The motion must address a significant safety or environmental issue; and (3) The motion must demonstrate that a materially different result
USCA Case #21-1162 Document #1953998 Filed: 07/07/2022 Page 13 of 35
would be or would have been likely had the newly proffered evidence been considered initially.
(b) The motion must be accompanied by affidavits that set forth the factual and/or technical bases for the movants claim that the criteria of paragraph (a) of this section have been satisfied. Affidavits must be given by competent individuals with knowledge of the facts alleged, or by experts in the disciplines appropriate to the issues raised. Evidence contained in affidavits must meet the admissibility standards of this subpart. Each of the criteria must be separately addressed, with a specific explanation of why it has been met. When multiple allegations are involved, the movant must identify with particularity each issue it seeks to litigate and specify the factual and/or technical bases which it believes support the claim that this issue meets the criteria in paragraph (a) of this section.
The foregoing regulations lay out nearly insurmountable challenges to an
intervenors reopening a proceeding to raise a new contention based on an EA or
EIS. The Federal Respondents inexact description of the NRC intervention/
contention process is misleading. The real issues are (1) whether participation in
the NRCs NEPA process by submitting comments is open to members of the
public, and (2) whether such participation makes them parties under the Hobbs
Act.
Clearly, the process is open, and by their comment participation, the
Petitioners are parties. The D.C. Circuit held in Vermont Dept of Pub. Serv.,
supra that commenting on NEPA documents is a lawful means of participation in
that administrative process and of exhausting administrative remedies.
But the NRCs rules of procedure work to restrict participation via the
USCA Case #21-1162 Document #1953998 Filed: 07/07/2022 Page 14 of 35
NRCs adaptation of NEPA created under the AEA. Consequently, the NRC has
violated the statutory public participation requirements of NEPA. If members of
the public can submit comments but cannot seek judicial review of EA or EIS
adequacy, as the Federal Respondents argue, then participation by commenting is
meaningless and the aims of NEPA are thwarted.
Centrus/American Centrifuge Operating argues that the usual NEPA
procedure, i.e., public comment, rather than the NRCs adjudicatory process,
would create a one-sided record and not allow a license applicant an opportunity
to present its side of the case. But that argument (although baseless) could be
made in any NEPA case in any other agency. There is no reason the NRC should
be any different. The purpose of NEPA is to inform the agency and the public en
route to the agencys making an informed decision. NEPA is not meant to be an
adversary proceeding.
The foregoing discussion, taken together with the arguments raised in
Petitioners' initial brief, demonstrates that the requirement of participation in the
proceeding, which forms the basis of party aggrieved status for purposes of
Hobbs Act jurisdiction, is satisfied by a partys publicly commenting on an
agency's NEPA documentation. That is exactly what the Petitioners did here, by
reason of which they are parties aggrieved.
USCA Case #21-1162 Document #1953998 Filed: 07/07/2022 Page 15 of 35
II. THE NRC VIOLATED NEPA BY THE ISSUANCE OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT INSTEAD OF COMPILING AN EIS.
The Petitioners maintain that the NRC violated NEPA by not preparing an
EIS addressing the issues of terrorism and nuclear weapons proliferation and the
anticipated impacts on the domestic uranium supply chain. The NRC quibbling
response is that Petitioners do not specify what exactly they expected the NRC to
consider within the context of its NEPA evaluation, since proliferation by
definition occurs abroad. Fed. Resp. Br. at 20. But this dodge pointedly ignores
the explicit demand for an EIS made by Petitioners in their March 30, 2021
comment letter:
The Commission, then, has a legal and non-discretionary duty to consider whether a decision to grant a first-of-a kind commercial license for HALEU enrichment could abet the proliferation of this fuel to domestic terrorists or foreign governments. Saudi Arabia, for example, is acquiring SMRs for the unabashed purpose of developing nuclear weapons. In some contexts, SMR commerce could be indirectly if not directly inimical to the common defense and security of the United States or the health and safety of its public. The Commission's NEPA analysis of HALEU must consider the full range of defense and security risks implicated by this licensing decision, and must consider all reasonable alternatives that could eliminate or mitigate those risks.
(Idx 55, Lodge Comment Letter p. 3; Apx 185).
Contrary to the NRCs quibble, sabotage, terrorism and proliferation all
begin at home. They are reasonably foreseeable risks with potential environmental
USCA Case #21-1162 Document #1953998 Filed: 07/07/2022 Page 16 of 35
impacts resulting from the decision to issue the amended license to American
Centrifuge Operating, LLC.
NEPA regulation 40 CFR § 1503.3(a) addresses the need for specificity of
public comments, stating that they:
... shall be as specific as possible, may address either the adequacy of the statement or the merits of the alternatives discussed or both, and shall provide as much detail as necessary to meaningfully participate and fully inform the agency of the commenter's position. Comments should explain why the issues raised are important to the consideration of potential environmental impacts and alternatives to the proposed action, as well as economic and employment impacts, and other impacts affecting the quality of the human environment.
Petitioners commented about several important project aspects, such as the
big difference in Uranium-235 concentrations between current nuclear reactor fuel
and high assay low enriched uranium to be used in next-generation reactors, and
how that difference made the new fuel problematic in ways that were not relevant
with low-enriched conventional fuel. (Idx 55, Lodge Comment Letter pp. 1-2, Apx
183-184). Petitioners referenced an analysis from the Union of Concerned
Scientists that explained the proliferation potential of the new fuel and pointed
out that global competition in small modular reactors is on the rises, to explain
why terrorism and proliferation issues should be considered to be environmental
impacts. (Idx 55, Lodge Comment Letter pp. 2-3, Apx 184-185). Indeed, Centrus
USCA Case #21-1162 Document #1953998 Filed: 07/07/2022 Page 17 of 35
attempted argument that the Union of Concerned Scientists report concedes that
the new fuel isnt usable in a nuclear weapon backfires. Centrus Br. at 37. The full
quote in Petitioners comment letter is, According to a recent report issued by the
Union of Concerned Scientists, [w]hile HALEU is considered impractical for
direct use in a nuclear weapon, it is more attractive for nuclear weapons
development than the LEU [low-enriched uranium] used in LWRs [light water
reactors]. (Idx 55, Lodge Comment Letter p. 3, Apx 185). Petitioners letter set
out scientific and practical facts stating why high assay low enriched uranium
poses proliferation problems, including that it is possible for the new fuel to be
used to make a thermonuclear weapon. Centrus tacitly agrees that proposition is
true by arguing, not the impossibility, but only its supposed unlikelihood.
Centrus also claims that since there will be fewer centrifuges pursuant to the
proposed license amendment than in the prior enrichment projects at the Piketon
site, that the impact is obviously less. But that argument conveniently ignores the
reality that the resulting enriched uranium will have from four to six times the
Uranium-235 concentration of the earlier enrichment products from the Centrus
facility. Centrus also sidesteps American Centrifuge Operatings documented
intentions of scaling up the number of centrifuges to meet demand. The switch to
producing a richer type of uranium fuel, along with the companys preparedness to
USCA Case #21-1162 Document #1953998 Filed: 07/07/2022 Page 18 of 35
expand manufacturing of it support the Petitioners request for an Environmental
Impact Statement. American Centrifuges chronology of previous EAs and EISes
compiled on earlier enrichment license requests at the Piketon facility is legally
irrelevant, because Petitioners issue is the dramatically increased uranium
concentration of high assay low enriched uranium over prior fuel mixtures. No
prior EA or EIS addresses Uranium-235 fuel above 10% concentration.
Centrus/American Centrifuge Operating seek permission to enrich Uranium-235 to
unprecedented levels, a prospect never contemplated in previous license requests.
A. Terrorism Is A Legitimate Aspect Of NEPA Analysis
Anticipated acts of terrorism must be part of a NEPA evaluation, according
to two somewhat conflicting cases, San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. NRC,
449 F.3d 1016 (9th Cir. 2006) and New Jersey Dept of Envtl. Prot. v. NRC, 561
F.3d 132 (3rd Cir. 2009). While Centrus accuses Petitioners of inexcusably
omitting to mention New Jersey in their initial brief, San Luis Obispo is more
persuasive in terms of its applicability to new, as opposed to continuation, licenses
issued by the NRC.
In San Luis Obispo, the Ninth Circuit held that NEPA requires terrorism to
be considered in evaluating environmental impacts. The court first considered
whether the likelihood of a terrorist attack was too far removed from the natural
USCA Case #21-1162 Document #1953998 Filed: 07/07/2022 Page 19 of 35
and expected consequences of the agency action, and concluded that the question
of the relationship between the agency action and the expected consequences was
akin to the concept of proximate cause in tort law expressed in Metropolitan
Edison Co. v. People Against Nuclear Energy, 460 U.S. 766, 103 S.Ct. 1556
(1983). The court analyzed for (1) a major federal action; (2) a change in the
physical environment; and (3) an effect. The Ninth Circuit found a proximate
cause relationship between the federal action to license construction of a spent
nuclear fuel storage installation and the resulting attraction the new spent reactor
fuel storage facility might have for potential terrorists. The court noted that the
NRCs review of terrorist threats to nuclear facilities after the September 11, 2001
attacks effectively comprised an admission that there was a direct connection
between nuclear facilities and terrorism.
In the Third Circuit decision of New Jersey Dept of Envtl. Prot. v. NRC,
the petitioners challenged the relicensing of the Oyster Creek nuclear reactor. The
court considered whether the federal action - a subsequent license extension -
could be deemed the direct cause of the environmental impacts of terrorism. The
Third Circuit ruled that merely relicensing an existing reactor would not make
terrorism any more likely than it had been previously, so NEPA did not require an
evaluation of terrorism. Consequently, if the federal action does not create a new
USCA Case #21-1162 Document #1953998 Filed: 07/07/2022 Page 20 of 35
or increased risk of terrorism, NEPA does not require an analysis of the
environmental impact of terrorism. In San Luis Obispo, the proposal was for a new
radioactive waste storage facility on the site of the reactor, whereas in New Jersey,
the action involved an existing license renewal where there would not be a change
which produced a new proximate cause to any likelihood of terrorist activity.
In the present matter, Petitioners contend that a new enrichment process to
concentrate Uranium-235 to levels of up to 25% could draw possible terrorist
interest as well as sabotage or nuclear weapons material trafficking scenarios. As
the Petitioners said in their comment letter to the NRC:
Uranium enriched to more than 20% is classified as High enriched uranium (HEU), which poses greater nuclear weapons proliferation concerns. When Iran announced recently that it was enriching uranium to 20%, many western countries expressed alarm because of nuclear weapons proliferation concerns. Under the final Iran nuclear deal, negotiated and signed in 2015, Iran was not allowed to enrich uranium beyond 3.67%. A civil enrichment plant designed to produce nuclear reactor fuel could easily be reconfigured to produce material for nuclear weapons. Thats why such facilities pose nuclear proliferation risks and need to be rigorously safeguarded.
(Idx 55. Lodge Comment Letter, p. 2, Apx 184). This comports with the analysis
in San Luis Obispo, where the federal action creates a direct link to the
environmental impact.
USCA Case #21-1162 Document #1953998 Filed: 07/07/2022 Page 21 of 35
B. Nuclear Proliferation Has Long Been Of Concern Under NEPA
As Petitioners noted in their initial brief, nuclear proliferation and security
issues have long been recognized as logical topics for NEPA analysis. See,
Scientists Institute for Public Information, Inc. v. AEC, 481 F.2d 1079 (D.C. Cir.
1973) (court required the Atomic Energy Commission to prepare a Programmatic
EIS on the Commissions Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor Program; the PEIS
addressed nonproliferation and terrorism).
The Federal Respondents cite NRDC v. NRC, 647 F.2d 1345 (D.C. Cir.
1981) for the proposition that NEPA does not apply to federal licensing of nuclear
reactors for export to foreign nations. Fed. Resp. Br. at 43. In NRDC, the basis of
the courts decision was that the claimed environmental impacts would be
completely extraterritorial, i.e., outside the United States, that shipping a reactor to
the Philippines would not implicate any domestic U.S. impacts. By contrast, the
Petitioners present concern is that high assay low enriched uranium, which will
be domestically produced, might become an objective or target of terrorism,
sabotage or nuclear weapons trafficking (proliferation). Therefore, the NRC is
obliged to undertake an EIS to evaluate foreseeable sabotage, terrorism or
proliferation threats.
Notably, the court in NRDC expressly limited its decision to direct export of
USCA Case #21-1162 Document #1953998 Filed: 07/07/2022 Page 22 of 35
nuclear reactors: I find only that NEPA does not apply to NRC nuclear export
licensing decisions and not necessarily that the EIS requirement is inapplicable
to some other kind of major federal action abroad. Id. at 1366. The D.C. Circuit
also emphasized that NEPA requires agencies to:
(F) recognize the worldwide and long-range character of environmental problems and, where consistent with the foreign policy of the United States, lend appropriate support to initiatives, resolutions, and programs designed to maximize international cooperation in anticipating and preventing a decline in the quality of mankinds world environment.
(Emphasis added).
NEPA, § 102(2)(F), 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(F).
There is also executive authority for assessment of environmental impacts
that may cross national boundaries. Executive Order 12114, Environmental
effects abroad of major Federal actions, 44 FR 1957 (Jan. 4, 1979), requires
Executive Branch agencies to have procedures under NEPA to evaluate major
Federal actions significantly affecting the environment of the global commons
outside the jurisdiction of any nation (e.g., the oceans or Antarctica) as well as
major Federal actions significantly affecting the environment of a foreign nation
not participating with the United States and not otherwise involved in the action.
Id. at § 2.3(a) and (b).
Section 102(2)© of NEPA (42 U.S.C. § 4332( C) requires the preparation of
USCA Case #21-1162 Document #1953998 Filed: 07/07/2022 Page 23 of 35
an EIS for all proposals for federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the
human environment. Nothing in that section limits the requirement for an EIS to
projects that have only domestic impacts, so long as the proposed action is within
the jurisdiction of an entity of the U.S. government. And since NEPA § 102(2)(F)
obligates agencies to recognize the worldwide and long-range character of
environmental problems, the purpose of NEPA and its EIS requirement clearly is
to assure that the United States itself is never responsible for unanticipated
environmental injury anywhere. Robinson, Extraterritorial Environmental
Protection Obligations of Foreign Affairs Agencies: The Unfulfilled Mandate of
NEPA, 7 N.Y.U. Intl L. & Pol. 257, 270 (1974).
The increase in fuel enrichment levels by four to six-fold between the
current generation of operating power reactors and SMRs warrants scrutiny under
NEPA. High assay low-enriched uranium fuel made from Uranium-235 that has
been enriched to as much as 25% by volume could be used in a dirty nuclear
device to, say, contaminate a neighborhood, or to provide starter material for
enrichment to the 90% Uranium-235 concentration most desirable for nuclear
weapons. High assay low enriched uranium can be moved about in black market
transactions, has weapons utility even without further enrichment, and when
manufactured in high volume (thousands of kilograms) opens the door to
USCA Case #21-1162 Document #1953998 Filed: 07/07/2022 Page 24 of 35
proliferation concerns. There is significant justification for an EA or EIS to
address the proliferation potential of this new fuel type.
C. The NRC Has A Central Role In U.S. Nonproliferation Policy
Centrus argues that the NRC does not have the power to address
Petitioners proliferation concerns because of its limited place in U.S. proliferation
policy. Centrus Br. p. 40, citing Department of Transportation v. Public Citizen,
541 U.S. 752, 770, 124 S.Ct. 2204 (2004). Centrus points to § 123(a) of the
Atomic Energy Act (42 U.S.C. § 2153(a)) as supposed proof that negotiation of
nuclear technology export agreements is within the purview of the Department of
State and not the NRC. Centrus trivializes the NRCs role under § 123 by not
quoting the actual statutory language.
But it is a legal fact that the NRC holds a central role in regulating so-called
nuclear safeguards procedures, which implement U.S. responsibilities as a
signatory to the global Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Regulations at 10 CFR
Part 75 direct the NRC to ensure that the U.S. meets nonproliferation obligations
under safeguard agreements with the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA). These obligations include providing information to the IAEA on the
physical location of the NRCs licensee activities; information on source and
special nuclear materials; and access to the physical location of applicant, licensee,
USCA Case #21-1162 Document #1953998 Filed: 07/07/2022 Page 25 of 35
or certificate holder activities. 10 CFR § 75.1.
The NRCs responsibility extends to all persons licensed by the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC)... ; who have filed an application with the NRC
to construct a facility or to receive source or special nuclear material; or who
possess source or special nuclear material subject to NRC regulation under 10
CFR Chapter I. Special nuclear material is defined by Title I of the Atomic
Energy Act to include Uranium-235. This means that high assay low enriched
uranium is special nuclear material, and that Centrus and American Centrifuge
Operating consequently have nonproliferation accountability to the NRC. Centrus/
American Centrifuge Operating are required to report to the NRC their initial and
subsequent inventories of Uranium-235 (10 CFR §§ 75.32 and 75.34); to compile
material status reports (10 CFR § 75.35); to provide the NRC with advance notices
of imports, exports or domestic transfers of enriched uranium (10 CFR § 75.43);
supply facility information (10 CFR § 75.10(d)); and to report site information (10
CFR § 75.10(e)). Centrus and American Centrifuge Operating must supply
information about nuclear fuel cycle-related research and development along with
nuclear fuel cycle-related manufacturing or construction. 10 CFR § 75.11(b)(1, 2).
As a nonproliferation regulator, the NRC is required to gather data on uranium
mine and concentration plant information, including the physical locations,
USCA Case #21-1162 Document #1953998 Filed: 07/07/2022 Page 26 of 35
operational status, and estimated annual production capacity and current annual
production of those activities. 10 CFR § 75.11(b)(3). The Centrus facility is
subject to inspection by representatives of the International Atomic Energy
Agency respecting any aspect of the NRCs and the contractors nonproliferation
safeguards compliance. 10 CFR § 75.8.
Although § 123(a) of the Atomic Energy Act (42 U.S.C. § 2153(a)) requires
the U.S. Secretary of State to negotiate proposed agreements to transfer nuclear
technology, including fuel, to another country, the statute also mandates important
involvement by the NRC. Section 123(a) mandates only after consultation with
the [Nuclear Regulatory] Commission shall the agreement be submitted to the
President jointly by the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Energy
accompanied by the views and recommendations of the Secretary of State, the
Secretary of Energy, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. In sum, Centrus
misleads the Court by claiming that the NRC has no ability to prevent a certain
effect due to its limited statutory authority over the relevant actions, the standard
of Public Citizen, 541 U.S. at 770. However, the NRCs responsibilities range
from regulatory oversight of its licensees to comply with the Nonproliferation
Treaty to a significant role in decision making over § 123 nuclear technology
exports. The NRC certainly can prevent certain effects by exercising its statutory
USCA Case #21-1162 Document #1953998 Filed: 07/07/2022 Page 27 of 35
authority over activities that cause proliferation under § 123. Thus the NRC can
be considered a legally relevant cause of the effect under NEPA and must
address Petitioners proliferation concerns in its NEPA document addressing high
assay low enriched uranium. Public Citizen, 541 U.S. at 770.
D. Petitioners Described Impacts On Domestic Uranium Supply Chain
The Federal Respondents argue that the impact of the American Centrifuge
Operating project on uranium mining is too remote and speculative to justify being
evaluated pursuant to NEPA. To the contrary, the EA prepared by the NRC states:
Although the LAR requests authorization to operate the HALEU cascade to enrich uranium-235 to a higher enrichment level over a three-year period, ACO has stated that it will submit an additional license amendment for authorization to operate the HALEU cascade for an additional period of up to 10 years....
Because this action is reasonably foreseeable, the environmental impacts from up to an additional 10 years of operation are considered in this EA.
(Idx 81, Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact p. 4,
Apx 205). In all, Petitioners cited and quoted four (4) different places in the EA
which explicitly suggest the likelihood of a decade of operations to produce high
assay low enriched uranium by American Centrifuge Operating after the first three
contract years. See Petitioners Br. at pp. 6-7. The NRC could not have been
clearer that it expects the three-year demonstration project to inexorably lead to a
subsequent 10-year agreement, and the NRC stated that the EA covered the
USCA Case #21-1162 Document #1953998 Filed: 07/07/2022 Page 28 of 35
environmental impacts within that 10-year period. Changes in the amount of
domestic uranium mining surely would be one environmental effect, inasmuch as
there currently is almost zero uranium mining going on in the U.S.
Furthermore, the Purpose and Need statement in the EA clearly states that
the operation of the cascade would provide a domestic source of HALEU for
possible use in future advanced reactors (ACO 2020a). (Index 81, EA p. 5, Apx
206). The Department of Energy has stated that small modular reactors are a key part of the Departments goal of developing new nuclear power options. The1
Department expects that small modular reactors will be in operation in the late
2020s to early 2030s, which falls within the 10-year period the NRC considered in
the EA.
Uranium mining has significant environmental impacts. These impacts
range from the creation of massive stockpiles of radioactive and toxic waste rock
and sand-like tailings to serious contamination of surface and groundwater with
radioactive and toxic pollutants, and releases of conventional, toxic and
radioactive air pollutants. See, Uranium Mining: Nuclear Powers Dirty Secret,
www.pembina.org.
1See, Advanced Small Modular Reactors (SMRs),
https://energy.gov/ne/advanced-small-modular-reactors-smrs (last visited 5/24/2022).
USCA Case #21-1162 Document #1953998 Filed: 07/07/2022 Page 29 of 35
III. THE NRC SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO PREPARE AN EIS OR PROGRAMMATIC EIS FOR THE AMERICAN CENTRIFUGE OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT APPLICATION.
Petitioners argue that the NRC should be required to prepare a
Programmatic EIS because this demonstration project portends the start of a larger
and foreseeable industrial production era over decades, with heavy DOE and NRC
involvement. In opposition, Centrus asserts that American Centrifuge Operating is
not currently taking steps to implement near-term deployment of a commercial
scale enrichment facility, that additional licenses will be needed to expand the
program. Centrus Br. at 44-45. Centrus urges (Br. at 45) that the development of a
commercial market, which by definition would not be a market in which DOE was
the sole or a dominant buyer, excuses EIS or PEIS scrutiny of high assay low
enriched uranium. But that means that the Centrus demonstration project is the
starting point of commercialization of the new fuel type and thorough NEPA
investigation and analysis is warranted now.
The Federal Respondents argue that the NRC is not a participant or
decisionmaker in any larger program and is not tasked with planning or
committing resources to any broad federal policy supporting the commercial
development or viability of advanced reactor fuels. Fed. Resp. Br. at 54. But the
NRC will play the key role in the future licensing of advanced reactor fuels
USCA Case #21-1162 Document #1953998 Filed: 07/07/2022 Page 30 of 35
manufacturing, and would be doing so in coordination with the Department of
Energy. The NRCs central role in determining the future of high assay low
enriched uranium underscores the requirement of an EIS at this early stage.
This controversy is not the NRCs first foray into proliferation matters and
preparation of a Programmatic EIS. In the mid-1970's, the NRC began proceedings
to ascertain the wisdom of reprocessing spent nuclear fuel to recover plutonium
for the U.S. nuclear weapons program. In preparing a Draft Programmatic EIS, the
NRC attempted to narrow the scope of the proceeding, which was challenged by
critics of recycling plutonium. The Natural Resources Defense Council and others
successfully sued to halt interim licensing of reprocessing facilities because a
reprocessing policy would change how the U.S. would comply with its obligations
under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. The International Atomic Energy
Agency applies safeguards to nuclear material held or used in facilities under the
Treatys terms.
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals suspended licensing until the
Programmatic EIS was done, because it recognized that recycling plutonium
would be a dramatic shift in direction of the U.S. nuclear industry, with
implications beyond domestic nuclear power expansion. The Court saw that a new
technology may have environmental impacts that would not be apparent for years,
USCA Case #21-1162 Document #1953998 Filed: 07/07/2022 Page 31 of 35
explaining as follows:
The requirements of the NEPA apply to the development of a new technology as forcefully as they apply to the construction of a single nuclear power plant. It cannot be doubted that the Congress, in enacting NEPA, intended that agencies apply its standards to the decision to introduce a new technology as well as to the decision to license related activity; see 42 U.S.C. § 4331(a) (1970); S.Rep. No.91-296, 91st Cong., 1st Sess., 20 (1969). The fact that the environmental effects of such a decision about a new technology will not emerge for years does not mean that the program does not affect the environment or that an impact statement is unnecessary; see Scientists' Institute, supra, 481 F.2d 1079, 1089-90 (discussing the technology of the uranium breeder reactor). In numerous cases involving the commercial introduction of a new technology, as well as in cases where the agency has undertaken isolated activity which the courts found to be in actuality part of a larger program, the courts have not hesitated to identify major federal action on the broader scale and to require the preparation of a regional or generic impact statement before allowing major federal action to proceed. See Sierra Club v. Morton, 169 U.S.App.D.C. 20, 514 F.2d 856 (1975), cert. granted, 423 U.S. 1047, 96 S.Ct. 772, 46 L.Ed.2d 635, 44 U.S.L.W. 3397 (1976) (requiring a regional impact statement for coal mining in the Northern Great Plains area); Conservation Society of Southern Vermont, Inc. v. Secretary of Transportation, (Conservation Society I), 508 F.2d 927 (2d Cir. 1974), vacated and remanded, 423 U.S. 809, 96 S.Ct. 19, 46 L.Ed.2d 29, 44 U.S.L.W. 3199 (1975); Scientists' Institute, supra (declaratory judgment that the AEC must prepare a generic impact statement for the new technology of the breeder reactor); see also Indian Lookout Alliance v. Volpe, 484 F.2d 11 (8th Cir. 1973). Such broad-scale impact statements may be required for a series of major federal actions, even though individual impact statements are to be prepared for each isolated project; see Sierra Club, supra, at 871; Scientists' Institute, supra.
Otherwise, agencies could take an approach akin to equating an appraisal of each tree to one of the forest. Jones v. Lynn, 477 F.2d 885, 891 (1st Cir.
1973).
Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. United States Nuclear Regulatory
USCA Case #21-1162 Document #1953998 Filed: 07/07/2022 Page 32 of 35
Com'n, 539 F.2d 824, 841-842 (2nd Cir. 1976) (emphasis added). As Petitioners
made clear in their comment letter, high assay low enriched uranium may be in
demand as fuel for several small modular reactor designs under consideration.
Those reactors are as yet unbuilt, but there is market anticipation for reactors
requiring Uranium-235 fuel enriched to nearly 20%. The objection by the Federal
Respondents that no Programmatic EIS is required because there are no other
actions pending lacks merit. A Programmatic EIS is required when there is a
program that will involve future actions. As the court said in Nevada v. DOE, 457
F.3d 78, 92 (D.C.Cir. 2006):
A programmatic EIS reflects the broad environmental consequences attendant upon a wide-ranging federal program. The thesis underlying programmatic EISs is that a systematic program is likely to generate disparate yet related impacts.... [T]he programmatic EIS looks ahead and assimilates broad issues relevant to [the program]....
There may be multiple major federal actions as the new reactor types proceed
through the NRC licensing gauntlet, and those actions can be tiered to a
Programmatic EIS. The development of high assay low enriched uranium is the
basis for a long range program, by the NRCs own admission.
CONCLUSION
This case paints in stark relief two concepts: (1) the NRC has attempted to
bury its NEPA obligation in a procedure virtually impenetrable to public view and
USCA Case #21-1162 Document #1953998 Filed: 07/07/2022 Page 33 of 35
involvement, and (2) rather than protecting people and the environment, as its
motto suggests, by mandatorily considering whether a licensing action could be
inimical to the common defense and security of the U.S. (required by 42 U.S.C. §§
2077(c)(2)8 and 2099), the NRC is instead serving as a handmaiden for the
nuclear industry.
The Petitioners are asking this Court to enforce NEPAs requirement to
maximize public involvement and to ensure a thorough evaluation of the
environmental impacts of the proposed project. It should not be difficult to
understand that the uranium enrichment process which Centrus/American
Centrifuge Operating has been hired to construct and operate portends significant
environmental impacts which should trigger the requirement for an environmental
impact statement. That is the relief Petitioners request.
WHEREFORE, Petitioners pray the Court find and declare that
Respondents Nuclear Regulatory Commission and United States of America have
violated the National Environmental Policy Act in the particulars cited
hereinabove, and that by way of relief the Court remand this matter back to the
NRC with instructions to compile either an Environmental Impact Statement or a
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, the decision to be made following
scoping as required by NEPA regulations. Further, Petitioners pray the Court grant
USCA Case #21-1162 Document #1953998 Filed: 07/07/2022 Page 34 of 35
such other and further relief, at law and in equity, as may be necessary in the
premises.
Dated: July 7, 2022 Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Terry J. Lodge Terry J. Lodge, Esq.
316 N. Michigan St., Suite 520 Toledo, OH 43604-5627 (419) 205-7084 Fax: (419) 932-6625 Emails: tjlodge50@yahoo.com lodgelaw@yahoo.com
/s/ Wallace L. Taylor Wallace L. Taylor, Esq.
Law Offices of Wallace L. Taylor 4403 1st Ave. S.E., Suite 402 Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52402 319-366-2428 Fax: 319-366-3886 E-mail: wtaylorlaw@aol.com Co-Counsel for Petitioners
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 7th day of July, 2022, I filed the foregoing Petitioners Final Reply Brief in the Courts electronic case filing system, which according to its protocols would automatically be served upon all counsel of record.
/s/ Terry J. Lodge Terry J. Lodge Co-Counsel for Petitioners
USCA Case #21-1162 Document #1953998 Filed: 07/07/2022 Page 35 of 35
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
The foregoing Petitioners Proof Reply Brief complies with the typeface requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(5); the type-style requirements of Fed. R.
App. P. 32(a)(6); the length limitation set forth in F.R.App.P. 27(d)(2)(a); and the applicable rules for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
The Memorandum was prepared in 14-point, double spaced Times New Roman font using Wordperfect 4X. The Reply Brief contains 6,493 words.
/s/ Terry J. Lodge Terry J. Lodge Co-Counsel for Petitioners
PETITIONERS DESIGNATION OF ITEMS FOR INCLUSION IN DEFERRED APPENDIX
No additional appendix items were identified in this Reply Brief.