On February 23, the NRC released feeble reasoning to extend MOX plant construction license from 2015 to 2015 – “good cause” means bad process
We think we smell a rat down the MOX hole…
At a public meeting on January 15, 2015, Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff kept saying they made a “good cause” determination to extend the MOX plant construction license, from 2015 to 2025, based on the justification presented by the holder of construction authorization (CB&I AREVA MOX Services).
See the NRC’s February 12 document linked here
But it turns out that that there was no real justification presented and the “good cause” analysis was nothing formal and was merely cursory. It now is seen to have been staff simply accepting what the company presented and not reviewing anything that may have shined negative light on the request, such as self-inflicted management problems and massive cost overruns and schedule delays.
SRS Watch pushed NRC staff to justify their “good cause” determination and pointed out that the staff had ignored many reasons not to extend the license, or to extend it only for a few years. See SRS Watch comments – “Is the NRC’s 10-Year License Extension for the MOX Plant Construction a Prelude for More Delays?” (The NRC staff seemed perturbed at the stark honesty of the title of the comment, which we insisted be posted in ADAMS).
After the January 15 meeting, as suspicions about the process had been raised, SRS Watch requested of the NRC the formal “good cause determination” and was shocked to be told that told there was no written “good cause” analysis. Subsequently, the NRC came up with the pitiful answers linked above.
Here is a bit of the text of the NRC’s written response, posted on February 23 in ADAMS (NRC digital library), to defend their pitiful reasoning to extend the construction license based on a short list of reasons given by MOX Services:
“1. Questions asked by members of the public during discussion of CA extension and
associated administrative changes.
a. Explain the good cause standard basis for extending the CA.
Answer provided: As outlined in the staff’s SER and confirmatory order to MOX
Services, the NRC evaluated the justification provided by MOX Services in their
request for an extension of the CA. The determination of “good cause” was based
on a combination of factors and the staff’s determination that the reasons provided
were beyond their control, are logical, and that the time requested is reasonable
based on the uncertainty of funding for construction.”
As shocking as it is, this is the best defense that the NRC can mount to defend its “good cause” determination. The answer reveals just how poor the NRC’s regulation of the MOX plant is.
In sum, the “good cause” determination was feeble at best and reflects that the NRC will bend over backwards to accommodate MOX Services even when poor or no documentation is provided. The NRC’s biased and totally inadequate and incomplete process in making the bogus “good cause” determination reveals but one reason why the mismanaged and illogical MOX project is mired in deep trouble.