Crane Crap letters (12) to Federally Recognized Tribes
NRC Letters to Federally Recognized Tribes - Notice of Issuance of Draft EA and Draft FONSI Regarding the Chri | 2026-06-10 09:56 AM EST |
N2
MJK
Saturday, June 13, 2026
NRC Letters to Tribes - Notice of Issuance of Draft EA and Draft FONSI
Wednesday, June 10, 2026
Update on Paducah Enrichment
Here is an update on Global Laser Enrichment’s proposed Paducah Laser Enrichment Facility (PLEF), the first-of-its-kind laser uranium enrichment facility in the country. The NRC released the draft EIS and opened a public comment period that closed May 11, 2026. The draft EIS: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2606/ML26061A085.pdf
As I wrote in my CounterPunch article back in April, there are two main issues:
First, the NRC is using NUREG-2249 — a Generic Environmental Impact Statement written for nuclear reactors — as a substitute for site-specific analysis of a laser enrichment facility, a completely different technology that has never operated at commercial scale anywhere. Second, the whole project depends on DOE selling GLE more than 200,000 metric tons of depleted uranium tails stored at the old Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant — and the GAO has twice concluded DOE probably lacks the legal authority to sell it.
https://www.counterpunch.org/
Since then, two parties have submitted requests for hearings, and I’m sharing the status of this. I’m lucky to be in communication with the applicants who are keeping me up-to-date and I thought I’d share it with y’all.
Timeline:
In May, the Kentucky Resources Council (KRC), a public-interest environmental law group, filed a request for a hearing:
https://www.nrc.gov/docs/
A second petitioner, Michael McVicker, also filed a request for hearing, raising issues including seismic risk and the cumulative impacts of the adjacent General Matter enrichment facility now under development on the same site:
https://www.nrc.gov/docs/
On June 1, both GLE and the NRC Staff filed answers opposing the petitions. They argue the petitioners lack standing and have no admissible contentions. On the NUREG-2249 issue, they defend an internal staff “crosswalk” — a document with no rulemaking and no public process — as sufficient basis to apply reactor findings to a laser enrichment facility. On the DOE issue, they argue that whether DOE can legally sell the uranium is “outside the scope” of the licensing proceeding — even though the license itself authorizes GLE to receive and possess that exact material.
GLE’s answer:
https://www.nrc.gov/docs/
NRC Staff’s answer:
https://www.nrc.gov/docs/
Today, June 8, KRC filed its reply pushing back on all of it, including the NRC’s decision to skip a cumulative impacts analysis entirely by granting itself an exemption from its own regulations.
KRC’s reply should be available on NRC’s Adam’s system soon. I can’t send attachments to the list so if you’re interested in seeing it, let me know and I’ll send it to you.
This is an important and developing story because it shows how the NRC is operating in ways that seem completely illegal. If the Board denies the petition — which it most likely will — KRC can appeal to the full Commission, and if that fails, take the case to federal court.
I plan to write about this after the Board’s decision and will keep you posted. If you have any comments or feedback, please share. Feel free to forward this.
Sunday, June 7, 2026
NRC guts mandatory sufficiency hearings for Reactor Licensing Effective June 8, 2026. No public comment taken
NRC guts mandatory sufficiency hearings for Reactor Licensing Effective June 8, 2026. No public comment taken.
What changed:
• Previously the mandatory hearing came after staff completed its safety and environmental review — as an independent sufficiency check confirming the work was adequate
• It now happens 30 days after docketing — before the safety and environmental review exists
• The Commission delegated its authority to a staff facilitator. No commissioners required
• The sufficiency review is gone. The hearing produces no findings and no binding outcomes
• You can request a contested hearing after the review is complete — which can be dismissed on procedural grounds before it ever reaches the merits
The NRC justifies eliminating the sufficiency review by arguing that the original 1957 hearing requirement was a response to the AEC’s dual role promoting and regulating nuclear power — a conflict they claim was resolved when Congress abolished the AEC in 1974 and created the NRC. That argument is fiction because clearly the NRC is promoting nuclear power every day.
[decomm_wkg] FERC Overrules PJM: TMI Gets a Get out of Jail Pass
Anticipated capitulation by FERC
Thank you to Roger Harried Micheal Keegan.
Distribution of the Draft Environmental Assessment and Draft FONSI Regarding the Proposed Reauthorization of Power Operations for Christopher M. Crane Clean Energy Center, June 2026
You are subscribed to Crane Clean Energy Center Potential Restart - Environmental Review for U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). This information has recently been updated, and is now available. Greetings: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Energy Dominance Financing (EDF) staff have completed the subject draft report, “Draft Environmental Assessment and Draft Finding of No Significant Impact for the Christopher M. Crane Clean Energy Center Reauthorization of Power Operations Project.” This draft Environmental Assessment (EA) was prepared in response to the licensing and regulatory requests submitted by Constellation Energy Generation, LLC, that, if approved, would collectively support reauthorizing power operations at the Christopher M. Crane Clean Energy Center. As stated in Chapter 5 of the draft EA, the staff’s draft conclusion is that the environmental impacts of the proposed Federal actions would be not significant for any potentially affected resource area and would not significantly affect the quality of the human environment. The draft EA is being distributed to interested Federal, State, local, or regional agencies, Indian Tribes, industry organizations, interest groups, and members of the public via this notice and other appropriate methods. The draft EA is available in the NRC’s Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) as ML26120A058 and on the NRC’s project website at https://www.nrc.gov/info- A notice of availability of the draft EA is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on June 8, 2026, announcing the start of the public comment period. The comment period will run until July 8, 2026. When the 30-day comment period opens, comments on this draft EA may be submitted by:
For further information, contact Kevin Folk, Senior Environmental Project Manager, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555–0001; telephone: 301–415–6944; email: Kevin.Folk@nrc.gov. |
Sunday, May 31, 2026
Friday, May 22, 2026
[decomm_wkg] Supreme Court declines to hear case involving St. Louis contamination. "The companies had asked the Supreme Court to review whether federal nuclear safety regulations preempt state tort standards of care in public liability actions."
Supreme Court declines to hear case involving St. Louis contamination
17h agoNuclear News
The Supreme Court of the United States on Monday declined to hear an appeal from General Atomics subsidiary Cotter Corporation and Commonwealth Edison, an Exelon company, in a case over alleged radioactive contamination in the St. Louis, Mo., area, leaving in place an 8th Circuit Court ruling that allows the plaintiffs’ state-law tort claims to proceed under the federal Price-Anderson Act.
The denial came in Cotter Corporation, et al. v. Nikki Steiner Mazzocchio, et al., docket no. 24-1001, according to the court’s May 18 orders list and docket. The justices did not explain their decision, as is typical in certiorari denials.
The case: The dispute stems from claims by Nikki Steiner Mazzocchio and Angela Steiner Kraus, who allege that exposure to radioactive waste tied to sites near Coldwater Creek caused them to develop cancer. In an October 2024 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit affirmed a lower court order declining to dismiss their claims against entities that allegedly handled the waste over the years, including Cotter Corp. and Commonwealth Edison, along with DJR Holdings and the St. Louis Airport Authority.
The companies had asked the Supreme Court to review whether federal nuclear safety regulations preempt state tort standards of care in public liability actions. The 8th Circuit said they do not, concluding that state tort law can still supply the applicable standard in this context. By denying review, the Supreme Court left that ruling intact, allowing the litigation to continue in the lower courts.
Background: Beginning in 1946, residues and wastes from Mallinckrodt’s St. Louis uranium processing facility in downtown St. Louis were improperly stored on property near the St. Louis airport and another site near Coldwater Creek. The bulk of the waste, which consisted of low-level radioactive contamination commingled with metals from uranium processing activities, was removed in the past, but residual contamination lingers.
A 2025 study published by the Journal of the American Medical Association claimed to have found an increased rate of cancer for people who grew up living close to Coldwater Creek. The study based its analysis on a cohort of more than 4,200 people who participated in the St. Louis Baby Tooth–Later Life Health Study. From 1958 to 1970, individuals in that study donated their baby teeth to assess exposure to atmospheric nuclear weapons testing.
Since the 1990s, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has been cleaning up the creek and surrounding areas under the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
