Copyright (c) 2010 Pace University All rights reserved. http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/envlaw Recent documents in Pace Environmental Law Review en-us Fri, 14 May 2010 08:18:57 PDT 3600 http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/envlaw/584 http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/envlaw/584 Thu, 18 Feb 2010 06:36:36 PST Marc B. Mihaly http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/envlaw/583 http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/envlaw/583 Tue, 16 Feb 2010 12:46:19 PST Jill I. Gross http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/envlaw/582 http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/envlaw/582 Tue, 09 Feb 2010 15:19:38 PST John D. Feerick http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/envlaw/581 http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/envlaw/581 Tue, 09 Feb 2010 15:19:37 PST Gail Bingham http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/envlaw/580 http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/envlaw/580 Tue, 09 Feb 2010 15:19:34 PST Sean F. Nolon http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/envlaw/579 http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/envlaw/579 Tue, 09 Feb 2010 15:19:32 PST James M. Van Nostrand http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/envlaw/578 http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/envlaw/578 Tue, 09 Feb 2010 15:19:29 PST Joseph A. Siegel http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/envlaw/577 http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/envlaw/577 Tue, 09 Feb 2010 15:19:27 PST Edna Sussman http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/envlaw/576 http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/envlaw/576 Tue, 09 Feb 2010 15:19:25 PST Jamie Ryan Pool http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/envlaw/575 http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/envlaw/575 Tue, 09 Feb 2010 15:19:24 PST Eleanor Stein http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/envlaw/574 http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/envlaw/574 Tue, 09 Feb 2010 15:19:22 PST Nathan Markey http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/envlaw/573 http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/envlaw/573 Tue, 09 Feb 2010 15:19:20 PST Jennifer Church http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/envlaw/572 http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/envlaw/572 Mon, 28 Sep 2009 08:52:36 PDT Michael I. Jeffery http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/envlaw/571 http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/envlaw/571 Fri, 17 Jul 2009 11:50:57 PDT http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/envlaw/570 http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/envlaw/570 Fri, 17 Jul 2009 11:50:54 PDT Anthony Z. Roisman http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/envlaw/569 http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/envlaw/569 Fri, 17 Jul 2009 11:50:51 PDT This article shows that the ongoing litigation over the relicensing of the Oyster Creek Nuclear Power Plant ("Oyster Creek") and a few other nuclear power plants continues to put a spotlight on the regulation of safety by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC"). The glare of the spotlight has already revealed that the NRC Staff has largely lost touch with the basic purpose of the agency, which is solely to regulate -safety, not to promote nuclear power. Instead, at Oyster Creek (and some other nuclear plants), the Staff has appeared more concerned about dismissing any concerns raised by their safety reviews rather than enforcing the safety requirements, which are themselves often unclear or ambiguous. This misguided agenda has been evident in decisions about both ongoing safety and relicensing. Happily, even though the litigation procedures are inadequate, when certain decisions have been vigorously litigated, some relief has been forthcoming from administrative adjudicatory bodies such as the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ("ASLB") and the Commission itself. However, the current procedures are extremely hostile to effective intervention by public-interest groups and many decisions, such as relicensing, can be taken without a hearing or Commission action in the absence of intervention. Therefore, many decisions taken by the NRC Staff go into effect without any searching internal or external review. This lack of effective review reduces the quality of these decisions. Thus, without serious reform of both the safety culture of the staff and the internal and external review procedures, the ability of the NRC to carry out its mandate to ensure that nuclear power plants within the United States are operated safely is seriously in doubt. One element of reform should be to ensure that before major decisions, like relicensing, are taken there is an effective internal review of NRC Staff actions by the ASLB and then the Commission. However, experience has shown that even the Commission is subject to strong pressure from the regulated community. Robust external review of NRC decisions is therefore critical if the agency is to avoid recapture by the industry. The best approach to providing such a review is to actively encourage citizen involvement in the decision-making processes of the NRC through greater transparency, opportunities for funding, and the use of fairer procedures. Richard Webster http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/envlaw/568 http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/envlaw/568 Fri, 17 Jul 2009 11:50:48 PDT Tamar J. Cerafici http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/envlaw/567 http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/envlaw/567 Fri, 17 Jul 2009 11:50:46 PDT Michael G. Faure http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/envlaw/566 http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/envlaw/566 Fri, 17 Jul 2009 11:50:43 PDT http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/envlaw/565 http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/envlaw/565 Fri, 17 Jul 2009 11:50:40 PDT Robert V. Percival