Court Tells NRC to Ignore Cost in Making Nuclear Plants Safe

WASHINGTON —  A federal appeals court on Tuesday ordered the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to disregard cost when deciding whether existing nuclear power plants should be modified to meet its minimum safety standard.

The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals here overturned a 1985 NRC regulation that was challenged by the Union of Concerned Scientists.

The regulation required a cost-benefit analysis in determining whether and how existing nuclear power plants should be modified to meet the standard of adequate protection for health and safety.

The appeals court said it is illegal to apply cost factors to decisions about whether a plant meets the adequate safety standard of the Atomic Energy Act.

“The overall focus and purposes of the act, as reflected in its history, support the conclusion that the commission may not consider economic costs in ensuring the adequate protection of public health and safety,” Judge Abner Mikva wrote for the three-judge panel.

The decision was issued a week after the full 11-member appeals court unanimously found that the Environmental Protection Agency could not use technological and cost factors in setting safe emission levels for cancer-causing chemicals.

In the nuclear power case, the court said that the NRC “must determine the content of the adequate protection standard without reference to economic costs; the commission must then apply that standard to individual applicants and licensees notwithstanding any pleas of poverty.”

The court did, however, rule that cost-benefit analysis could be used to determine whether modifications were needed to enhance a plant’s safety above the “adequate protection standard” defined by the law.