823 F.3d 641
D.C. Cir.2016Background
- Exelon sought renewal (20 years) of its Limerick nuclear plant licenses; Exelon had conducted a SAMA analysis at initial licensing in 1989.
- NRC promulgated a 1996 rule (10 C.F.R. § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(L), "Rule (L)") treating SAMAs for plants that already did a SAMA as not requiring a new site-specific SAMA at relicensing, while retaining review for "new and significant" information.
- NRDC sought to intervene in the Limerick relicensing proceeding, arguing Exelon’s Environmental Report failed to address new and significant SAMA-related information and that reliance on the 1989 SAMA was inadequate under NEPA.
- The Licensing Board initially admitted an NRDC contention; the NRC reversed, treating NRDC’s claim as a collateral attack on Rule (L) and remanded to allow NRDC to seek a waiver or rulemaking instead.
- NRC denied NRDC’s waiver petition after applying its four-factor waiver test, finding NRDC failed to show the circumstances were unique to Limerick; NRC nonetheless directed staff to review NRDC’s new information.
- NRDC petitioned for review; the D.C. Circuit upheld NRC, reasoning Rule (L) is a permissible generic treatment, NEPA and the AEA do not mandate a particular hearing procedure, and the waiver denial was not arbitrary and capricious.
Issues
| Issue | NRDC's Argument | NRC/Exelon Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether NRDC may challenge Rule (L) in an individual relicensing adjudication | NRDC: denial of a hearing on SAMA adequacy violates its rights under AEA/NEPA because new tech and changed circumstances make 1989 SAMA outdated | NRC/Exelon: Rule (L) is a valid generic rule; collateral attacks on regulations must be brought by waiver or rulemaking | Held: NRDC’s claim was a collateral attack on Rule (L); not allowed in adjudication absent waiver/rulemaking |
| Whether AEA/NEPA independently require an evidentiary hearing on "new and significant" information | NRDC: AEA’s hearing mandate and NEPA’s "hard look" require a hearing to adjudicate new SAMA evidence | NRC: Neither statute prescribes specific hearing procedures; agency may resolve issues generically and provide alternative channels | Held: Neither AEA nor NEPA guarantee an absolute right to an adjudicatory hearing on generically resolved issues |
| Whether NRC reasonably interpreted Rule (L) to allow reliance on prior SAMA for plants like Limerick | NRDC: Rule (L)’s text does not preclude requiring a new SAMA; reliance is arbitrary given tech changes and Fukushima | NRC/Exelon: Extensive initial SAMA, ongoing oversight, and procedures for new information make reliance reasonable and entitled to deference | Held: NRC’s interpretation and application of Rule (L) were reasonable and entitled to deference |
| Whether denial of NRDC’s waiver request was arbitrary and capricious | NRDC: waiver should be granted because new information and changed conditions are significant and warrant plant-specific review | NRC: NRDC failed the four-factor waiver test—specifically uniqueness—since issues raised are common to many plants | Held: Denial of waiver was not arbitrary and capricious; NRDC failed to show Limerick-specific uniqueness |
Key Cases Cited
- New York v. Nuclear Regulatory Comm’n, 681 F.3d 471 (D.C. Cir.) (NRC relicensing of nuclear plants constitutes a major federal action under NEPA)
- Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 462 U.S. 87 (U.S.) (agency may employ generic methods to satisfy NEPA’s "hard look" and NEPA does not mandate particular hearing procedures)
- Union of Concerned Scientists v. Nuclear Regulatory Comm’n, 920 F.2d 50 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (agency discretion to adopt operating procedures for hearings; deference to agency rulemaking resolving issues generically)
- Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 435 U.S. 519 (U.S.) (NEPA does not require specific procedural devices such as expanded hearings)
- Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Ass’n v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 463 U.S. 29 (U.S.) (arbitrary and capricious standard requires reasoned explanation connecting facts and decision)
- Massachusetts v. United States, 522 F.3d 115 (1st Cir.) (upholding NRC denial of intervenor status for challenges to generic findings and noting channels for new information)
- Nuclear Information and Resource Service v. Nuclear Regulatory Comm’n, 969 F.2d 1169 (D.C. Cir.) (agency may resolve certain issues by rulemaking even where statute requires hearings)