D.C. CIRCUIT BRIEF FILED IN SUPPORT OF HEARING RIGHTS IN NUCLEAR POWER PLANT RELICENSING

On behalf of the Natural Resources Defense Council, we filed a brief in the D.C. Circuit this week seeking to overturn the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) ruling that residents living near nuclear power plants have no right to participate in relicensing decisions, even where they possess significant new information. In the specific decision at issue, the NRC is considering whether to renew the license for the Limerick nuclear plant near Philadelphia.  NRDC and its members sought to present evidence showing how Limerick could cost-effectively reduce the severity of a catastrophic nuclear accident, but the NRC refused to let them participate.  We are asking the Court to reverse the NRC and rule that the agency must provide a hearing on these issues. Our brief is here.

SUMMARY DISPOSITION SOUGHT IN URANIUM MINING PROCEEDING

On behalf of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), we recently filed a brief before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) seeking a favorable resolution of NRDC’s challenge to a massive uranium mining operation proposed for Crook County, Wyoming.  Although the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) prepared an Environmental Impact Statement on the mining project, the agency has refused to establish baseline water quality levels, or to evaluate the extent to which the project is likely to degrade water quality, on the ground that these issues can be considered after the mining license is issued.  Because this approach violates the National Environmental Policy Act, our motion seeks to force the agency to consider these vital matters before mining operations commence.  Our brief is here.

BRIEF FILED OPPOSING R.J. REYNOLDS’ EFFORT TO DILUTE CORRECTIVE STATEMENTS EXPOSURE

Now that the district court has approved the implementation plan for the "corrective statements" remedy in the long running consumer fraud suit against the major tobacco companies, R.J. Reynolds (RJR) is seeking to dilute that remedy, arguing that it should not be required to run a television advertisement in its capacity as the successor to Brown and Williamson (B&W) – one of the original defendants in the suit.  The Court ordered that "each defendant" run a television ad telling the truth about cigarettes once per week for a year, but RJR asserts that because it merged with B&W pre-judgment, the ruling does not apply to that company.  Our brief, on behalf of the Public Health Intervenors (six major public health groups, including Tobacco-Free Kids and American Cancer Society) explains RJR’s argument is untimely because it should have been raised in the original appeal in 2008, and that in any event the Court was well within its authority in directing RJR to run two television ads, given that it now markets and sells both its own cigarette brands, such as Camel, and those formerly sold by B&W, such as Kool and Pall Mall.  Our brief is here.