Beyond Nuclear files two relicensing legal actions

In February 2025, Beyond Nuclear and the Sierra Club (“petitioners”) filed two legal actions challenging extreme relicensing decisions by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to qualify and extend US reactor operating licenses beyond 60 years to 80 years. The petitioners have argued that these license renewals are based on faulty analyses of the environmental impacts for extreme reactor operations that are irrational, unreasonable, incomplete, unsupported, arbitrary and capricious. Beyond Nuclear contends that the NRC has failed to satisfy requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for both its generic and site-specific relicensing applications.

On February 20, 2025, Beyond Nuclear and Sierra Club (“petitioners”) filed a 76-page legal brief in the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in response to the NRC issuance of its new rule and Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal (GEIS). The lawsuit draws attention to the federal agency ignoring the petitioners’ comments submitted earlier in 2024 on the Draft GEIS compiled. The petitioners’ substantial comments are supported by expert witness testimony of a retired NRC senior risk analyst and nuclear engineer focused on the materials facts that the new rule and rewrite of the GEIS, effective September 15, 2024, does not meet the legal standard for “adequate protection” of the public health and safety during the extended reactor operations from the destructive impacts of age-related degradation of critical reactor safety systems, structures and components (SSC). These SSCs include the large and irreplaceable steel reactor pressure vessels, reactor internal components, the massive concrete containment buildings and foundations. Other critical safety systems also include the miles and miles of the by and large inaccessible, uninspected buried control, instrumentation and power electrical cables and similarly extensive and inaccessible safety-related buried pipe systems.

The petitioners further challenge that the new rule and final GEIS do not meet the legal standard of “adequate protection” from the projected impacts of climate change on the increase of severe reactor accident risk and frequency as well as radiological accident consequences during the projected license renewal period.

In both the cases of age-related degradation of safety-related SSC operations and climate change impacts of severe accident risk and consequences, the NRC GEIS further fails to acknowledge an extensive list of  identified “knowledge gaps” and even broader uncertainties that erode the reliability of projecting operational risk, accident frequency and consequences into the license renewal period.

The petitioners are specifically challenging the NRC GEIS finding that the environmental impacts of a nuclear reactor accident “during the initial (40 to 60 years) and subsequent (60 to 80 years) license renewal term” would be insignificant or “SMALL” and, as a result, the NRC does not need to evaluate less impactful alternatives to extended reactor operations.

The petitioners are asking the federal court to vacate the NRC rule and Final GEIS. They further request that the Court order the NRC to more thoroughly investigate the adverse impacts, gaps and uncertainties of operational aging degradation of reactor safety margins. Furthermore, given that the NRC GEIS further claims that the adverse impact of climate change on reactor operations is “out of scope” of the agency’s environmental reviews for license extension, the petitioners assert that the court should require the NRC to take a “hard look” at the impact of climate change (sea level rise, increasingly severe storms, hurricanes, flooding, wild fires, etc) on severe nuclear accident risk and environmental consequences.

On February 24, 2025, petitioners Beyond Nuclear and Sierra Club additionally filed an appeal to the NRC Office of the Commissioners regarding an Atomic Safety Licensing Board order on a 60 to 80 year license renewal application of Duke Energy’s Oconee Units 1, 2 & 3 nuclear power station in Seneca, South Carolina for operations out to 2053 and 2054. The licensing board order now under appeal to the NRC Commissioners denies their request for a hearing, dismisses all of the petitioners’ contentions and terminates the relicensing proceeding.

Oconee nuclear station operates beneath and downstream of two large hydroelectric dams; the Jocassee Dam, a 385 feet high earthen rock-filled dam, ten miles upstream of the Oconee reactors roughly 300 feet below the top of the Lake Jocassee water level of more than 1 million acre feet of water and; the Keowee Dam, a 175 feet earthen dam that immediately abuts the nuclear power station that is sited roughly five feet below the top level of Lake Keowee and an additional 990,000 acre feet of water.

The three reactors were originally designed, constructed as a “dry site” where dam failure was considered an “incredible” event. Only precipitation directly onto the reactor site was analyzed for its flooding impact risk and dismissed. The only dam failure evaluated was for a “sunny day failure” or a structural failure unrelated to severe flooding. The “initial” 40 to 60 years license renewal application was approved without any challenge or consideration of a flood induced dam failure resulting in severe nuclear accident consequences that were analyzed in an environmental review or the NRC Environmental Impact Statement.

The NRC site-specific Environmental Impact Statement for Oconee has concluded that determining the projected impact of climate change on the reliable operation of Oconee safety systems including climate change induced extreme flooding events is “out of scope” of an environmental review.

Both of the petitioners’ legal actions as filed February 20 and 25, 2025 stem from previous Commission Orders issued three years ago on February 24, 2022. These NRC orders were won on appeal  in the first round of Subsequent License Renewal Applications filed by the intervenors that resulted in the NRC rescinding the original subsequent license renewals for the Turkey Point Units 3 & 4 and Peach Bottom 2 & 3 nuclear power plants, as well as suspend other active subsequent license renewal proceedings pending a rewrite of the GEIS as reported by the Associated Press . These same NRC Orders required the NRC staff to rewrite a new rule and Generic Environmental Impact Statement because the previous 2013 GEIS as written only applied to the license renewal period for the “initial” 20 year license extension of 40 to 60 years, not the “subsequent” license renewal of 60 to 80 years.