Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the commission) (defendant) considered two applications by two power companies. Southern Nuclear Operating Company (Southern) sought combined licenses to construct and operate two new Vogtle Nuclear Power Plant (Vogtle) units (units 3 and 4). Westinghouse Electric Company (Westinghouse) sought an amendment to its previously approved AP1000 reactor design. The Southern application relied on the AP1000 reactor design. The commission had approved Westinghouse’s AP1000 design when it issued a design-certification rule in 2006. The commission prepared an environmental assessment (EA) as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The EA analyzed 16 severe accident mitigation design alternatives (design alternatives) and rejected all 16 because none provided a better cost-benefit ratio. The commission received over 200 public comments after Westinghouse applied for an amendment to the design. Many comments advocated for delaying the proceeding until the commission applied to its regulations the lessons learned from the Fukushima accident. But the AP1000 design already covered many recommendations of the commission’s Fukushima task force, so the commission certified the AP1000 design while pointing out its practice of reviewing designs on an ongoing basis. After Southern applied for an early site permit for units 3 and 4, several parties intervened, and the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (the board) held several on-the-record hearings to evaluate contentions related to a draft environmental-impact statement (EIS). The board held a mandatory sufficiency review and approved the early site application. Next, Southern applied for combined operating licenses for Vogtle’s units 3 and 4. The commission prepared another EIS, which considered the potential for severe accidents. The board rejected several contentions from intervenors. The commission rejected both an emergency petition to suspend pending licensing decisions until the Fukushima-task-force report was completed and a petition to suspend rulemaking for the AP1000 design certification. Ultimately, the commission found that the AP1000 design certification and Vogtle’s combined licenses satisfied current safety and environmental standards. After a mandatory hearing, the commission approved the combined licenses applications for units 3 and 4, finding that the commission staff’s review supported mandatory environmental and safety findings, NEPA had been satisfied, and the staff process was appropriate. Finally, no nuclear plant was exempt from the Fukushima-task-force recommendations. Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League and others (plaintiffs) brought an action against the commission, arguing the commission had acted unreasonably.