San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
635 F.3d 1109
9th Cir.2011Background
- SLOMFP challenges NRC's DIABLO CANYON ISFSI NEPA review and SEA following a remand in Mothers for Peace.
- NRC issued a Final SEA/FONSI concluding no EIS required and that sensitive threat data could be FOIA-exempt.
- SLOMFP sought a closed hearing to access FOIA-exempt security information; NRC denied.
- NRC admitted some contentions (1(b), 2) but denied others, and decided not to disclose sensitive materials.
- NRC maintained that NEPA does not require a closed hearing and that the AEA does not compel access to restricted data, balancing security against environmental review.
- Petition for review seeks APA, AEA, and Hobbs Act relief challenging NRC decisions and the SEA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a closed hearing is required under NEPA/AEA. | SLOMFP argues NEPA and AEA require access to sensitive data in a closed forum. | NRC contends NEPA/AEA do not mandatorily require closed hearings and that disclosure risks outweigh benefits. | No; NEPA/AEA do not require a closed hearing. |
| Whether the SEA was adequate and no EIS was required. | SLOMFP contends the NRC failed to consider credible terrorist scenarios and environmental impacts. | NRC adequately analyzed plausible scenarios and prescribed scope; no need for an EIS. | SEA was adequate; no EIS required. |
| Whether the NRC properly screened or considered specific threat scenarios (early fatalities, zirconium fire, EASE indicator). | SLOMFP challenges screening criteria as excluding significant scenarios. | NRC reasonably screened scenarios and balancing considerations under Weinberger; no obligation to litigate every scenario. | Not abuse of discretion; agency reasonably considered scenarios within Weinberger framework. |
| Whether the NRC violated NEPA or AEA by refusing access to FOIA-exempt materials. | SLOMFP seeks access to FOIA-exempt analyses to participate meaningfully. | Public disclosure of sensitive security information is not required; safety outweighs access. | Agency compliance with NEPA/AEA upheld; no requirement to disclose FOIA-exempt materials. |
Key Cases Cited
- Baltimore Gas & Elec. Co. v. NRDC, 462 U.S. 87 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1983) (NEPA aims; disclosure may be limited by FOIA exemptions)
- Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1978) (NEPA's procedural scope and public participation principles)
- Weinberger v. Catholic Action of Hawaii, 454 U.S. 139 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1981) (NEPA with FOIA exemptions; limited disclosure allowed when information is sensitive)
- Union of Concerned Scientists v. NRC, 920 F.2d 50 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (NEPA procedures and public hearings; agency discretion)
- Limerick Ecology Action v. NRC, 869 F.2d 719 (3d Cir. 1989) (NEPA compliance in environmental decisionmaking; agency discretion)