1. They would never win a lawsuit to overturn the rule. Courts give great deference to regulatory agencies. It is often called “Chevron deference” after a lead case on the issue.

  2. Not to belabor the obvious or anything, but one might observe we’ve some 70,000+ tons of this stuff sitting around in casks that isn’t going to go away just by wishful thinking. If Drs. Cooper and Makhijani, and Diane Curran don’t like it just sitting there in well-guarded facilities awaiting further productive use, they are free to propose, and lobby for, practical alternatives.

    Yes, I know the mantra goes “But if we don’t have a safe way to dispose of it, we really have no choice but not to generate any more.” The same might be said for carbon dioxide, with the caveat that radioactive waste lightly-used nuclear fuel will dispose of itself far more rapidly than will atmospheric CO2.

    And not trip any global tipping points in the interim. I hear none of the anti-nuclear activists calling for the immediate and total cessation of fossil fuel production. Rod’s previous article indicates something quite the contrary.

    1. That is a great read.

      I wish SS accepted WP or TypePad logins for verification, though.  Very annoying to have on-topic contributions and no way to add them.

      1. Just request an account like anywhere else. AFAIK all operating systems have account/password organizers. They take a little getting used to, but only a little. You’ll never look back. I use MyPasswordSafe on Linux, but there are others.

  3. It is one thing to make press reserving the option of bringing a NEPA action against the NRC, but a big difference in actually assembling the attorneys and the war-chest to fight a final EIS in Federal Court, and to what end? One remark in the latest EIS analysis, “How many times do we evaluate the effect of zero effect.”

  4. I am still struggling to understand how they can claim a legal case.

    Admittedly I haven’t spent much time reviewing the documents, however their whole case rests on NEPA grounds (National Environmental Policy Act of 1969). Nowhere in their case is any mention of NWPA (Nuclear Waste Policy Act)

    NEPA doesn’t supersede NWPA nor does NWPA supersede NEPA.

    So since the NRC has fulfilled the legal requirements of generating an environmental impact statement, what legal standing does this new case have to stand on? The EIS fulfills the requirements of NEPA, and long term storage is not the NRC’s realm per NWPA.

    However, NUREG-2157 even goes beyond a typical EIS by addressing 3 separate timelines. Which does get into NWPA area so the NRC should be covered legally.

    The 2010 court case did not force the NRC to stop issuing licenses. That was a decision made at the commission level. And unless memory is failing me, that was a Jaczko thing

    What is the legal strategy here other then “we don’t like nuclear power”?

Comments are closed.

Recent Comments from our Readers

  1. Avatar
  2. Avatar
  3. Avatar
  4. Avatar
  5. Avatar

Similar Posts