On July 18, 2007, the San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace (MFP) sent a request to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for a hearing regarding the Environmental Assessment Supplement (EA) the NRC had prepared. The EA purports to address the environmental impacts of intentional attacks on the Diablo Canyon spent fuel storage facility, in response to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit's decision in San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. NRC. This decision was supported by the U.S. Supreme Court denial of Pacific Gas and Electric's petition for review.

The EA prepared by the NRC rules out credible threat scenarios that could cause significant environmental damage by contaminating the environment; it fails to provide references to scientific or other sources; it uses inexact language without definition; and it distorts and minimizes the environmental impacts of attacks by using hidden and unjustified assumptions.

"The NRC Staff's assessment of possible consequences of a terrorist attack is pathetic," according to Jane Swanson, spokesperson for San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace. "The EA fails to include realistic scenarios such as an attack launched from a boat or ship on the ocean side of the plant. Neither does it consider an attack by a relatively small group of individuals, using readily available weapons that could penetrate a canister of radioactive materials and ignite a fire, causing a release of radiation into the atmosphere. As usual, the NRC staff does not require nuclear plant operators to put public safety ahead of corporate convenience."

According to SLOMFP attorney, Diane Curran, and security expert, Dr. Gordon Thompson, "The EA is so poorly documented and explained that it is impossible to determine why the NRC decided that the environmental impacts of an intentional attack on the Diablo Canyon spent fuel storage facility are insignificant." In fact, a report prepared by Dr. Thompson in support of the hearing request showed that an attack on the spent fuel storage facility could cause widespread radioactive contamination.

NRC regulations allow the public to seek access to relevant safeguards information under appropriate procedural protective measures; however, the EA withholds even the titles of documents relied upon in reaching the conclusions of the EA. In contrast, the NRC held regular meetings with the nuclear industry to discuss security requirements.

There is no predetermined date by which the NRC will respond to this request, and the NRC has the options of admitting all, some, or none of MFP's Contentions at the requested hearing. "We have raised some important and challenging questions in our Contentions," states Jane Swanson, "and we look forward to the NRC's response."

Please find MFP's Reply of July 18, 2007 at http://mothersforpeace.org/core/20070718reply

Background:

On May 31, 2007, the NRC published a Federal Register notice offering the public an opportunity to comment on the Supplement to the Environmental Assessment and Draft Finding of No Significant Impact Related to the Construction and Operation of the Diablo Canyon Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation which it had issued on May 29, 2007. The EA purports to address the environmental impacts of intentional attacks on the Diablo Canyon spent fuel storage facility, in response to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit's decision in San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. NRC. This decision was supported by the U.S. Supreme Court denial of Pacific Gas and Electric's petition for review.