of public health and safety from deliberate acts of radiological sabotage.” NIRS respectfully submits that (a) the ASLB improperly denied admission of most of the contention based on the incorrect conclusion that the issues it raises are generic; (b) it unlawfully denied a portion of the contention on the ground that it did not raise “new” information; and (c) it imposed an unlawful and unduly burdensome requirement that NIRS must meet a regulatory waiver standard in order to raise new information or changed circumstances in a NEPA case;.
The ASLB’s decision in this case focuses on the relationship between the license renewal rule and the NEPA requirement to supplement Environmental Impact Statements (“EIS’s”) to address new information or changed circumstances, particularly as they relate to the impacts of terrorism and sabotage. Therefore NIRS’s brief focuses primarily on this issue. NIRS’ brief also addresses the importance of the new information and changed circumstances that have developed recently regarding the potential for acts of terrorism or insanity, with particular respect to the Catawba and McGuire nuclear plants and especially their planned use of Mixed Oxide (“MOX”) fuel.
In LBP-02-04, the ASLB also discusses the applicability of 10 C.F.R. § 50.13 for the purpose of precluding the contention. For a discussion of the applicability of 10 C.F.R. § 50.13 to NEPA issues involving terrorism or sabotage at nuclear power plants, NIRS refers the Commission to the brief filed by Connecticut Coalition Against Millstone/Long Island Coalition Against Millstone in Response to CLI-02-05 (February 27, 2002). That brief also addresses the lack of rational support for the Commission’s longstanding policy of refusing to consider the impacts of terrorism or sabotage in its Environmental Impacts Statements. While not addressed directly in LBP-02-04, this policy is relevant to the question of whether NIRS’s contention should be admitted. It is also relevant to the Commission’s question of whether NEPA requires