Brodsky v NRC Decision

8/7/2019 Brodsky v NRC Decision

1/41


2/41

been submit ted to the Court , and it i s appropr i a t e t ha t theCourt consider t ha t record in reviewing the Commission's

ions . Therefore , the Court t r ea t s the Commission's motion asone fo r summary judgment.

For the lowing reasons, the Commission's motion r summaryjudgment i s granted.

I . BACKGROUNDIn 1954, Congress passed Atomic Energy Act, as amended,

42 U.S.C. 2011 e t (the "AEA" or "Act") . The Act createdthe Atomic Energy Commission, l a t e r renamed the NuclearRegulato Commission, to regula te and develop nuclear energy,including a l l nuclear p lan t l i cens ing . The AEA i s "v i r t ua l l yunique in the degree to which broad re spons ib i l i ty i s reposed in

adminis t ra t agency, free of c lose presc r ip t ion in i t schar t e r as to how it s ha l l proceed in achieving s ta tu toryob jec t ives . " Siege l v. Atomic Energy Comm'n, 400 F.2d 778, 783(D.C. Cir . 1968).

In accordance with the AEA, the Commission i s charged withrmining whether a p l a n t ' s opera t ion i s " in accord with the

common fense and secur i ty and wi l l provide adequate pro tec t ionto heal th and sa fe ty of the publ ic ." 42 U.S.C. 2232(a) .Addi t iona l ly , under the the NRC has the power to amend,revise , or modify a l l l i censes , by reason of ru les andregu ions i s sued by the Commission. See id . 2237.

2

Case 1:09-cv-10594-LAP Document 22 Filed 03/04/11 Page 2 of 41


3/41

A. The Commission 's FiIn 1980, the NRC f i r e sa ru les in re to a

near ly ca tas t roph ic re a t the Browns Ferry power p l a n t . Thef i r e prompted the NRC to adopt a comprehensive program toprevent , de tec t , con t ro l , and ext inguish f i r e s in opera tnuc lea r power p l a n t s . In promulgat ing se ru l e s , theCommission 's goal was to design sa fe , a l t e r na t i ve shutdown

measures . A nuc lea r power p l a n t must have dup l ica te systems fo rshu t t ing down r eac to r un s in the case of an emergency.r egu la t ions , in pa r t , s e t in p lace f i r e r s to pro t e c tredundant stems t h a t power th e p l a n t ' s shutdown sys tems. SeeFire Pro tec t ion Program fo r Operat ing Nuclear Power Plan t s , 45Fed. Reg. 76,602 (Nov. 19, 1980) . These ru les (codi f ied a t 10C.F.R. 50.48 and 10 C.F.R. P t . 50 App. R) a re a t i s sue 2

The Commission 's ru les provide t h ree f i r e - s ty op t ionsa l i censee could adopt to c t dup l i ca t e shutdown capac i ty .Id . These methods are : (1 ) separa t ion of cables andequipment of a redundant system by a b a r r i e r I e o fwiths tanding f i r e fo r t h ree hours i (2 ) separa t ion of the

2 Sect ion 50.48(b) se t s fo r th Commission 's f i r e pro tec t ionru le . Appendix R to t h i s p a r t "e s t a b l i sh e s f i r e pro tec t ionf e a t u r e s . . with r espec t to ce r t a in gener ic i s sues fo rnuc lear p lan t s l i censed to before Janua 1, 1979." 10C.F.R. 50.48(b) . Therefo re , s pe c i f i c s from whichexemptions were granted a re in Appendix R.

3



4/41

redundant system by a dis tance of more than twenty fee t with noin te rvening combustible mater ia l or f i re zards , together withf i re de tec to r s and an automatic f i re suppress ion system; and (3)enclosure cable and equipment and as soc ia ted non-safe tyc i rcu i t s of one redundant system in a r able to wi tandf i r e for a t l e a s t one hour, along with re de tec to r s and anautomat ic f i re suppress ion system. 10 C.F.R. P t. 50, App. R,I I I . G . 2 ( 1 980). The f 1 ru les s t ipu la ted that" t e rna tshutdown capac i ty" must be protected one of thesemethods. Id . In th i s case , Pl a i n t i f f s cha l l enge the NRC'sdec is ion to gran t Ente an exemption from the t h i rd methodt h a t requ i re s e l e c t r 1 cables to withs tand re fo r a t l eas tone hour. (Comp 1. !Jl 15. )

In Connect icut and Power Co. v. NuclearCommission, 673 F.2d 525 (D.C. Cir . 1982), a l i censee l lengedthe newly-adopted f i re pro tec t ion es as unreasonable . Thecour t upheld f i r e pro tec t ion program in i t s re ty anda rmed th e Commission's au thor i ty to promulgate f i re safe tyru les . Id . When the NRC passed the f i r e pro tec t ion program1980, it allowed fo r a t h i r ty -day window for l i censees to applyfo r exemptions from the requirements . See id . a t 530. The NRCgranted exemptions upon a showing t ha t the requ i red an tmodi cat ion "would not enhance f i r e pro tec t ion safe ty in thef ac i l i t y or t ha t such modi ca t ions may be t r imen ta l to

4



5/41

overa l l f a c i l i s a f e ty . " 10 C.F.R. 50.48(c) (6); see Conn.__ ~ _ , 673 F.2d a t 530. The Connect icut Light cour t foundexemption procedure to be " 1" to the new ru l e s . 673 F.2da t 530. Because of d i f f e r e n t s t r uc tu r a l des i s , not everynuclear power p lan t could comply with th e new re protec t ion

a t ions . cour t found exemption process to beto th e reasonableness of the new ru l e s . The

Connect icut cour t held " [ t ]he pra ca l e f f e c t of theion procedure i s thus to u t i l i t i e s a four th

a l te rna t ive : if company can prove t h a t r methodas 1 as one of three s by the NRC, in l i g h t ofthe f ied f i re hazards a t i t s p lan t , it may cont inue toemploy t ha t method." Id . a t 534.

According to th e cour t , the exemption procedure ind ica tedthe NRC did no t in tend " to l im i t c t ive measures to th ethree methods s t ipu in the ru le , 10 C.F.R. 50, App. R,I I I .G .2 (1980)." Id . a t 536. Pl a i n t i f f s argue t h a texemptions in Connect icut conce only those ledwithin r ty days of new ru les t ak ing e f f e c t . Here,ne i ther the Commission nor Entergy discovered t ha t cee l e c t r i cables were non-conforming to the ru les e i shedin 1980 u n t i l twenty years l a t e r in 2005. There re , theNRC argues t h a t the ra t iona le fo r g ran t ingexemptions e x i s t s under presen t circumstances .

5



6/41

B. The an PointOver approximately the l a s t r ty years , Entergy appl ied fo r

and rece ived spec i c exemptions the f i r e protec t ionrequirements a t IP3. 3 The ins tan t appl ica t ion to the Commissionreque a revis ion to the ea r l granted exemptions. Fi r s t ,in 1984, the NRC gran ted IP3 exemptions from Appendix Rfea tures in des igna t areas , including Fire Area ETN-4 (FireZones 60A and 73A). (JA 44-55.)4 At t ha t t , IP3 wasemploying a f i r e bar r i e r ca l l ed Hemyc, which was l i eved tosa t i s fy one-hour re requirement under Appendix R. Basedon NRC's s t i ga t ion , the agency gran ted IP3 an exemption.( Id . ) exemption r discussed , among other th ings , thef i re detect ion and suppress ion systems, the d is tance betweenshutdown s terns, and durabi l i ty of the g las s and asbes tos

3 In 1982, Entergy submi an eva lua t ion of IP3 to theCommission reviewing i t s compliance with Appendix R.Simultaneously, Entergy s ted twenty-s ix exemptions from theAppendix R requirements . The Commission s t a f f recommended t ha te igh t exemptions be granted, s ix teen ions be ied , andfound two ions to unnecessary. (JA 136.) From 1984through 1987, Entergy supplemented the eva lua t ion of I andrequested an add i t iona l seven exemptions. (Id.) re re , theCommission a long h i s to ry of reviewing the Appendix Rregula t ions a t IP3 and in most cases has denied reques ts fo rexemptions.

"JA" re fe r s to the "Jo in t Appendix," at tached to theDeclarat ion of Benjamin H. Torrance. Also at tached to theTorrance ion i s the f ied Index of the Record. Th eJo in t Appendix and Cer t i Index cons tu te the reco submitto the Court i t s review.

6



7/41

bra ided cab les in the areas based on a se r s of f i re t e s t s .(JA 50-51.) In the end, the Commission concluded t ha t " theex i s t ing f i re pro tec t ion the conf igura t ion in s ide cabletunnels and e l e c t r i c a l penetra t ion area provides an acceptabl eve l of f i re p ro t e c t equiva lent to t ha t provided by Sect ionI I I .G .2 ." (JA 51.) Second, in 1987, the NRC r e v i s i t e de a r l i e r -g ra n t e d exemption for F i re Area ETN-4 and concluded t h a tthe exemption should still considered va l id . (JA 143-45.)Fur ther , the Commission considered an add i t iona l exemptionreques t fo r Fire Area PAB (Primary Auxil iary Bui ld ing) -2 reZone 1 ) . (JA 127, 138.) After analyzing the a l t e rna t ive f i repro tec t ion measures, the NRC concluded t ha t " i f a f i re occurs inth i s loca t ion , sa fe shutdown could still be achieved andmaintained." (JA 143.)

In 2005, the NRC discovered t ha t Hemyc was ac tua l ly nonconforming to i t s ru l e s . Despite i t s one-hour f i re b a r r rra t ing , it could only wi tand a f i r e fo r 27 to 49 minutes . TheNRC informed a l l l icensees in the country of the def ic iency withHemyc cables . (NRC Information Notice 2005-07, JA 167.) TheNRC d i rec ted l i censees to confirm compliance with the ex i s t ingregula t ions in l i gh t of th i s new informat (NRC GenericLet te r 2006-03, JA 209.)

In June 2006, Entergy no t i f i the NRC to po te n t i a l l y non-con rming Hemyc ba r r i e r s a t IP3. (JA 229.) Based on NRC

7



8/41

t e s t s , rgy revea led t h a t the Hemyc i n s t a l l a t a t IP3 were" inope rab le . " (JA 230.) On July 24, 2006, rgy

ted the NRC provide it with revised ions from th eR requirements for F i re Areas ETN-4 and PAB-2 which

were gran ted in 1984 and 1987, re spec t ly . (JA 234.)'s pos i t ion was t h a t a "Hemyc ERFBS (e c t r i c raceway

ba r r i e r system] f i r e r es i s tance o f 30 minutes w i l lprovide s u f f i c i e n t pro tec t ion fo r raceways , with

adequate margin, to cont inue to meet i n t e n t of the o r i g i n a lreques t fo r exemption and conclus ions in th e January7, 1987 SER [ sa fe ty eva lua t ] ." ) (JA 235.) Entergya t t ached to i t s r eq u es t a sa to suppor t i t s rev i s ionreques t . (JA 234-51.) In t h a t eva ion , Entergy discussed ,i n t e r a l i a , the Hemyc f i re r s , s t ruc tu r a l f ea tu res in thetw o f i r e zones , i gn i t ion sources , t r a n s i e n t combust ib le and ho twork con t ro l s , and f i r e ion and suppress ion sys tems.(Id . )

In response, on 2, 2007, th e ch i e f of theCommission 's Branch reques ted , by l e t t e r ,add i t iona l in requested r ev i s ion of ex i s t ingexemptions. (JA 275.) NRC forwarded to Entergy de ta i l edquest ions ask ing t case - i f i c concerns , inc lud ing thetype and amount of t r an s combust ib les in th e areas ,proximity to r combust ib les , pos tu la ted f i r e

8



9/41

scenar ios , and the l oca t ion of dra ins and dikes in the area .(JA 277.) On Apri l 30, 2007, Entergy submit ted i t s responses tothe Commission's reques t add i t iona l in fo rmat ion . (JA 444 60.) On August 16, 2007, Entergy amended i t s exemption reques tto ask t h a t re Area ETN-4 be ra t ed fo r only 24 minutes . (JA461. )

On September 24, 2007, pursuan t to the Nat ional Environmenta lPol icy Act ("NEPA U ), th e NRC i ssued an Environmental Assessment("EN') and a f ind ing o f no s ig n i can t impact ("FONSI") holdingt h a t Entergy ' s revised exemption would not s ign i f i c a n t ly impactthe environment . (JA 488.) According to P l a i n t i f f , i s i swhen th e publ i c f i r s t became aware of Ente rgy ' s exemptionreques t . (Compl. 29.) Four days l a t e r , on September 28,2007, the NRC granted Entergy ' s app l ica t ion fo r an exemption.(JA 496.)

On October 4, 2007, the NRC i ssued an order gran t ing Entergyan exemption from NRC f i r e pro tec t ion e, 10 C.F.R. p t . 50,App. R, I I I .G .2 .A.C. NRC publ ished the approval in th eFederal Regis te r . See Revis ion to Exis t ing Exemptions, 72 Fed.Reg. 56,798 (Oct. 4, 2007) .

On December 3, 2007, Pl a i n t i f f s f i l ed a formal objec t ion withthe NRC con te s t ing the exemption granted to Entergy . (JA 513.)Pe t ioner s reques ted t ha t the NRC hold a publ i c hear ing on the

9



10/41

i s sue . (Id.) On January 30, 2008, the NRC re j ec ted P l a i n t i f f s 'p e t i t i o n . (JA 909.)

C. Court of s ' Decision- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

On March 27, 2008, Pl a i n t i f f s led a p e t i on the Courtof Appeals appeal ing from the NRC's re j ec t ion o f t h e i r objec t ionto the exemption granted Entergy . Brods v. U.S. Nuclear

- - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -578 F . 175 (2d Cir . 2009). The Hobbs Act

s the cour t s of appeal "exc lus ive j u r i s d i c t i on to oin ,s e t as ide , suspend whole or in par t ) , or to determine theva l id i t y . . of 1 f ina l s orders o f the [NRC] made reviewableby sec t ion 2239 of tit 42." 28 U.S.C. 2342 (4) . In r e levan tpar t , 2239(a) includes "any proceeding r the grant ingsuspending, revoking, or amending of any l i cense ."

On May 5, 2008, the NRC moved to dismiss the t i on , arguingt ha t exemption was proper ly granted and t h a t exemptions donot requ i re hear ings under the Commission's r egu la t ions .Brodsky, 578 a t 179. On August 27, 2009, the Court of Appealsdismissed P l a i n t i f f s ' pe t i t i on on j u r i s d i c t i o n a l grounds. Id .a t 183-84.

The Court of Appeals held tha t " [ t ]he p la in t e x t of 2239(a)does not confer appe l la te j u r i sd i on over f 1 0 r s i s suedin proceedings involving exemptions, i r re spec t ive of any hearingrequi rement . " Brods 578 F.3d a t 180. Accordingly , thej u r i s d i c t i on determina t ion depended on whether exemptions were

10



11/41

inc luded within 2239(a) . The Court of Appeals held they werenot . Id . The Commission argued t ha t an exempt i s d i s t i n c tfrom " the grant ing , suspending, revoking, or amending" of al i cense . ( Id . ) The Court of Appeals agreed and ld t ha t " th i si s a reasonable in te rpre ta t ion of th e Hobbs Act, and one t ha tdeserves de rence ." Id . a t 180-81. The cour t it"cannot read exemptions in to p la in t e x t of 2239(a) ,p a r t i when the NRC i t s f (to which deference i s owed) i surging exemptions a re d if r en t from" amendments. . a t181. Moreover, th e cour t held th e NRC's exemption programhas ex i in some form s ince 1956 and t ha t Congressamended 2239(a) since then and never included exempt thes t a t u t e ' s t e x t . Id .

There , the Court of Appeals held t ha t it lackedj u r i s d i c t under the Hobbs Act to review exemptions. Id . a t182. However, because it would y lack j u r i sd i c t i on iforder cha l was indeed an exemption, the Court went on todecide whether October 4th NRC r was an exemption oramendment. Id .

1. The Commission's r I s anan Amendment

The Court of s held t ha t whi the l abe l placed upon an

Not

order by an agency i s not conclusive, l abe l s deservedeference when y a r e reasonable. Id. a t 182. The NRC

11



12/41

appl ied 10 C.F.R. 50.12 in deciding whether to gran t anexemption. The Brodsky cour t held t ha t " [a]n agency 'sapp l ica t ion o f s own regu la t ions i s ' con t ro l l ing unlessp la in ly erroneous or incons i s ten t with the r egu la t ion[ s ] . '"Brodsky, 578 F.3d a t 182 ( t ing Auer v. Robbins, 519 u.s. 452,461 (1997)); see also Fed. v. Hoi 22 U.S.~ - - - - - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 389 (2008) (" [T] he agency i s en t i t l ed to . deference when itadopts a reasonab in te rpre ta t ion of r egu la t ions it has put inforce ." ) "Ult imately the agency 's judgment, if reasonab , m u s tpreva i l . " Brodsky, 578 F. a t 182. The Court of Appealsconcluded t ha t the Commission ied i t s r egu la t ions and ru lesreasonably in t h i s case when c l a s s i f i ed Ente rgy ' s app l ica t ionas an exemption. s (Id.) The Court found t ha t " [c ]ons i s ten t with10 C.F.R. 50.12, the agency concluded t ha t t r ea t i ng thechal lenged order as an exemption was author iz by law,presented not undue r i sk to publ ic heal th and sa fe ty ; and wascons i s ten t wi the common de e and s e c ur i t y . " Id .Addi t iona l ly , the NRC found t h a t " c i a l c i rcumstances"j u s t i th i s exemption as the "under lying purpose" of AppendixR would still be sa t i s f i ed a r the exemption. Id . (c i t ing 10C.F.R. 50.12 (a ) (2) ( i i ) ) .

S The Court of Appeals noted t ha t it lacked j sd ic t ion toconsider the val id i ty of the regula t ions themselves. Id . a t 182n.4 . In , P l a i n t i f f s are asking t h i s Court to ru le theCommission's ru les and regula t ions unlawful .

12



13/41

In concluding , the Court of Appeals held t ha t because itlacked j u r i s d i c t i on it expressed no opinion as to , i n t e r a l i a ,whether the NRC's denia l of a hear ing was proper or whether theexemption a t i s sue i s a rb i t r a ry and capr ic ious . Id . a t 183-84.The Court held only t ha t Pet i t ioners were cha l lenging anexemption, not an amendment, and exemptions are not d i rec t l yreviewable by the Court of Appeals. Id . a t 184. In a f i na lfootnote , the Court of Appeals remarked tha t "Pe t i t ione rs arefree to seek review in the d i s t r i c t cour t of the NRC's act ionspursuant to the APA." Id . a t 184 n.6 .

I I . DISCUSSIONPursuant to Rule 56, summary judgment i s appropr i a t e if the

record shows tha t there i s no genuine i s sue as to any mater ia lf ac t and t ha t the moving par ty i s en t i t l ed to judgment as amatter of law. Celotex Corp. v. C a t re t t , 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106S. Ct. 2548, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986) . The cour t must resolve

1 ambigui t ies and draw a l l f ac tua l infe rences in favor of thenonmoving par ty , but t ha t r ty cannot p re v a i l by showing the"mere exis tence of some a l leged f ac tua l dispute between thepar t i e s . " Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc . , 477 U.S. 242, 247,106 S. Ct. 2505, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1986) . The par ty moving fo rsummary judgment has the i n i t i a l burden of es tab l i sh ing t h a t nogenuine i s sue of mater ia l fac t ex i s t s . Celotex, 477 U.S. a t323. I f the moving par ty s a t i s f s t h i s burden, the burden

13



14/41

sh i f t s to non-movant to come for th withdemons a genuine i ssue of mater ia l fac t .

Pla in t i f al lege twenty-one causes of act ion pursuant to theAEA, the Administra t ive Protection Act ("APA"), and NEPA.Pla in t i f ' c l can be grouped f ive categor s :

(1) The NRC lacks author i ty to crea te or i ssue ons tothe f i re protec t ion program. (Counts 1-4)

(2) The AEA APA required NRC to hold publ ic ar ingson exemptions. (Counts 5-9)

(3) The NRC was required by NEPA to an EnvironmentalImpact Statement ("ElS"). (Counts 10-11 . )

(4) The NRC 1 to consider probat evidence or r e l ion evidence not in the administrat ive record. (Counts12-19 , 21)

(5) The NRC the exemption too quickly and could nothave had time to evaluate the request . (Count20) .

Commission's posi t ion i s tha t as a matter of law each ofPl i f f ' s claims I s . The Court addresses of these

s in turn.A. The NRC's Exempt Author i ty

AEA es tabl ished a comprehensive regul frameworkrning the operation of nuclear power plants in the United

Sta t e s . See . . : V . . : : e : : . . : r : . . : m . : . . : . o : : : . n : . . : . . . : : t : . . . . . . : : . y : . . : a : : . : n : . . : . : : : . : : : : . : : : : : . . . . . . : : . . : . . = . : : . . : : . : : : : . : : : : a : . . : : r : . . . . . . . . . . : P = - - o = - w . : . . : . . . . : : e - = r ~ C = - - o = - = L - . : . _ v : . . . . : . - . -::....N..:;..a;...;.t;...;.u;...;.r=--a::..::.l_R_e_s_. 14



15/41

Defense Council , Inc . , 435 U.S. 519, 525-526 (1978) ("Under the

709

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 68 Sta t . 919, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2011 e t seq . , the [Nuclear Regulatory Commission] was givenbroad regula tory au thor i ty over development of nucene rgy . " ) ; River 359 F.3d 156, 167 (2d~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Cir . 2004); Cnt . of Rockland v. F.2d 766, 769 (2d Cir . 1983). The Commission was granted

ss s ta tu to author i ty to "make, promulgate , i s sue , rescind, and amend such ru les and regula t ions as may be necessary to carry out the pu ses of th i s chap te r . " 42 U.S.C. 2201 (p) (1976) .

The NRC i s charged with the "primary respons ib i l i ty" toensure t ha t the "genera t ion and t ransmiss ion of nuc powerdoes not unreasonably threaten the publ ic welfa re . " Cnty. o fRockland, 709 F.2d a t 769; see a lso Riverkeeper , 359 F.3d a t167. In acco with th i s mandate, NRC has au thor i tyto promulgate and es i sh ru les rning the ra t ion ofnuc power p lan t s . 42 U.S.C. 2201(p}; see Cnty. ofRockland 70 9 F.2d a t 769. Where Congress has grancomprehens regula to powers to an agency, Supreme Courthas found t ha t the power to grant exemptions i s an inheren t pa r tof t ha t autho -=---=--"-'y. See . , U. S. v. Allegheny-Ludlum Stee l__L-Corp., 406 U.S. 742, 755 (l972) ( " I t i s wel l es tab l i shed t ha t anagency 's au thor i ty to proceed a complex area such as car

15



16/41

se rv ice regu la t ion by means ru l e s of genera l app l ica t ione n ta i l s a concomitant au thor i ty to prov ide exemption proceduresin o rd e r to al low fo r spec ia l c i rcumstances . " ) Undoubtedly,nuclear sa ty i s a complex area o f regu la t ion , and theCommission has been delega ted with broad au th o r i t y to ensure thesa fe ty of nuclear power p lan t s .

Pl a i n t i f f s contend t h a t the AEA does not ex p ress l yau thor ize exemptions. (CompI. errerr 52, 56, 62, 69.) Thus,P l a i n t i chal lenge the v a l i d i t y o f 10 C.F.R. 50.12, whichau thor izes exemptions. P l a i n t i f f s concede, however, t h a t th eNRC has au thor i ty to gran t , modify and amend l i c en s e s to nuclearpower f a c i l i t i e s and to make ru l e s and regu la t ions to governt h e i r o p e ra t i o n . (Compl. err 52.) The Commission argues t h a t asp a r t o f t h a t mandate, it has au tho ty to g ra n t exemptions toth e ru l e s it promulgates . (Defs . ' Mem. 10.) Under P l a i n t i freasoning , the Commission 's regu la t ions a re " i ronc lad" and canonly be a l t e r e d through the formal amendment procedure . SeePIs . ' Mem. Opp. 1 .)

General ly , the Commission has broad au th o r i t y in makingdec i s ions regard ing nuclear p lan t s a f e ty . Cnty. o f Rockland,709 F.2d a t 770 ("The Commission 's au thor i ty i s b r o ad - i t mayshu t down a nuclear p lan t or take a d d i t i o n a l enforcement ac t ionif no t sa t i s f i ed with emergency prepa redness . " ) ; Duke PowerCo., 770 F.2d a t 390 ("Because of the unique natu re o f [nuclear

16



17/41

sa ty ] , it has been well sa id t ha t ' broad r e s pons ib i l i t y i sreposed in the adminis t ra t ive agency [ i . e . , the Commission],free of c lose presc r ip t ion in i t s char t e r as to how it s ha l lproceed in achieving the s ta tu tory ob j ec t i ves . ' " (c i t ing N. AnnaEnvt l . Coal . v. Nuclear Comm'n 533 F.2d 655, 659____ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ d - ~ ~ ~ ~ (D.C.Cir . 1976))) . In County of Rockland, cour t remarked:

One of the most emotional i s sues confront ing oursoc ie ty today i s the adequacy of safe ty measures a tnuc lear power f a c i l i t s . [T]he debate overnuc lear sa fe ty pers i s t s as pub l i c i n t e r e s t groupscharge t ha t se r ious problems remain and opera to r u t i l i t i e s seek to assure the pub l i c t ha t a l lreasonable measures have been taken to p ro t e c tsurrounding popula t ions in the event of a majornuc lear acc ident . But it i s the United Sta tes NuclearRegula tory Commission . . . which must decide thed if c u l t ques t ions concerning nuc lear power sa fe ty .70 9 F.2d a t 766.P l a i n t i f f s ' arguments are unpersuasive. Pursuant to 10

C.F.R. 50.12, the NRC may grant exemptions where " theexemptions are author ized by law, wi l l not presen t an undue skto publ ic hea l th or sa fe ty , and are cons i s t en t wi the commonde se and secur i ty" and where " spec ia l circumstances" arepresent .

17



18/41

The regula t ions se t for th s ix spe circumstances . 6 TheCommission only f ind t ha t one i a l circumstance appl ies

order to grant an exemption. 7 The au thor i ty to g ran texemptions has a pa r t o f the agency 's r egu la to ry s t ruc turefo r over f i f t y years . See Brodsky, 578 F.3d a t 181 ("[T]he

6 Anyone of the fol lowing " spec ia l circumstances" can j u s t i anexemption:( i) Appl ion of regul in the par t i cu l a rcircumstances c onf l i c t s with othe r ru les or requirements ofthe Commission; or( i i ) Appl ica t o f the regula t ion th e par cu l a rcircumstances would not serve the underlying purpose of theru le or i s not necessary to eve the r ly ing purposeo f the ru i or( i i i ) Compliance would r e su l t in undue hardship or o ther cos ts t ha t are s ign i f i can in excess of those contemplated when the regula t ion was adopted, or t ha t are s ign i f i c a n t ly in excess of those incurred by others s imi la r ly s i tua ted ; or (iv) The exemption would r e su l t in b e n e f i t to the publ icheal th and sa fe ty t ha t compensates fo r any decrease insa t ha t may r e su l t from the gran t of the exemption; or(v) Th e exemption wou provide only temporary r e l i e f fromthe appl icable regula t ion and the l icensee or app l ican t hasmade good f a i t h e f fo r t s to comply with r egu la t ion ; or(vi) There i s presen t any other mate circumstance notconsidered when the regula t ion was adopted fo r which itwould be in publ ic r e s t to g ran t an exemption. I fsuch condi t ion i s re I on exclus ively fo r sa t i s fy ingparagraph (a) (2) of th i s , the exemption may not begran ted u n t i l the Executive rec to r fo r Operat ions hasconsu l ted with Commission.

10 CFR 50.12.7 According to Pla in t i f f s , i f an exemption i s permi t ted , it mustbe temporary in order to be id . However, t ha t i s only one ofthe s spec ia l rcumstances l i s t ed in 10 C.F.R. 50.12.Cl y, the pIa language of the ru le does not require t ha ta l l exempt be temporary.

18



19/41

NRC's exemption program has been on the books in some form s ince1956") (c i t ing 21 Fed. Reg. 355 (Jan. 19, 1956)) . The Court o fAppeals ided it not have or ig ina l j u r i s d i c t i on overCommission's ac in th i s case because it was an exemption,not an amendment. Moreover, a number o f cour t s have aff i rmedthe Commission's au thor i ty to grant exemptions. See_--


20/41

i t s f ac t s from the type case before t h i s Court . The Cour theld :

[W]e a re no t concerned here with th e "equ i t ab le "d i s c r e t i o n o f agencies to a f fo rd case-by-caset rea tment t ak ing in to account c i rcumstances p ecu l i a rt o ind iv idua l p a r t i e s in the app l i ca t ion o f a g en e ra lru l e to pa r t i c u l a r cases , o r even i n appropr i a t e casesto gran t d i spensa t ion from the r u l e ' s ope ra t ion . Theneed fo r such f l e x i b i l i t y in appropr ia te cases i sgenera l ly recognized , and enhances th e e f f e c t i v eopera t ion o f the admin i s t ra t ive p ro cess , thoughCongress may, of course , r e s t r a in the agency bymandating s tandards from which no var iance i spermi t t ed .

rd . a t 357-58. Clear ly , the Alabama Power hold ing was notin tended to hamstr ing an agency ' s a b i l i t y to make cas e - s p ec i f i cdec i s ions where necessary fo r s p e c i a l c i rcumstances .

Moreover , th e Alabama Power co u r t reviewed an exemptioncon t ra ry to th e express language in a congress iona l s t a t u t e .

The cour t descr ibed the agency ' s ac t ion as seek ing "v ind ica t iono f an approach cont ra ry to the e x p l i c i t s t a t u t o ry des ign on thebas i s of its es t i ma t e o f i t s l ack o f capac i ty to handle the t a skdelega ted to i t . u rd . a t 359-60. This i s not th e i s sue beforet h i s Court . Here, the Commission promulgated th e r u l e s inAppendix R, pursuan t to a mandate from Congress to e s t a b l i shf i r e - s a f e ty r u l e s . The NRC d id not gran t an exemption toEntergy cont ra ry to an express s t a tu to ry requ i rement . There i snothing in the record to sugges t t h a t the Commission 's c rea t iono f f i r e sa fe ty ru l e s was any th ing bu t in conformity with its

20



21/41

1 s l a t i ve mandate. r , the Court of Appeals inConnect rmed the Appendix R re sa fe ty program asadopted by the Commission. 673 F.2d a t 528. Fu , theConnect icu t cour t upheld Appendix R ru les because thef ina l es allowed r exemptions, which t he cour t concludedwere a " c r i t i c a l element f l e x i b i l i t y . " Id . a t 530.

The argument t h a t NRC i s author ized to promu e ru lesbut s not have ab i l i t y to modify those ru les on a case bycase determina t ion def ies common sense. The NRC's author i ty toes tab l i sh ru les and a t ions must go hand in hand with theagency 's ab i l i t y to g ran t ions on a case by case bas i s to

se very same ru les .B. Sect ion 2239(a) Does Not Require Publ ic Hearings fo r

ionsOnly i tems l i s in 2239(a) (1) (A) give r i s e to the

r i g h t to a publ i c r ing . s Pl a i n t i f f s a s s e r t three reasons fo r

8 Sec t ion 189(a) of the AEA, codi a t 42 U.S.C. 2239(a) (1) (A), prov ides :

In any proceeding under s chapte r , for thegran t ing , suspending, revoking, o r amending of anyl i cense or cons t ruc t ion permit , or app l ica t ion tot r ans r con t ro l , in any proceeding r thei s suance o r modif ica t ion of ru les and r egu la t ionsing with the a c t i v i t i e s o f l i censees , and in anyproceeding the payment of compensat ion, an awardor ro y a l t i e s under sect ions 2183, 2187, 2236(c) or2238 of th i s tit Commission s ha l l gran t a(continued on next page)

21



22/41

why a publ i c hear ing was necessary . s . ' Mem. Opp. 11-12.)None of ir reasons f a l l s with in the scope of 2239 (a) (1) (A )

Fi r s t , Pla in a s se r t " t h a t IP3 ' exempt ion, ' becauseof i t s scope , permanency, and sa and publ i c hea l thconsequences was in and e an amendment to Ente rgy ' sl i cense . " (P ls . Mem. 11.) As discussed above, th e Cour t ofAppeals decided t h i s i s sue . Sect ion 2239(a) does n ot mention

exemptions , and the Court of Appeals , in t h i s case , deferred tojudgment of Commission t h a t ca tegor ized t h i s ac t ion as

an exemption, not an amendment. Brodsky, 578 F.3d a t 182-83.The Cour t of Appeals he t h a t " p la in t e x t of 2239(a)

does no t confer l l a t e j u r i s d i on over f i na l 0 s i ssuedin proceedings involving exemptions, i r r e sp e c t i v e of any hear ing

rement ." Id. a t 180 (emphasis added) . P l a i n t i f focus ons language to argue t h a t the Court o f Appeals ' i s ion not

to extend ju c t ion i s i r r e l e v a n t to whether a hear ing i srequ i red pursuan t to 2239(a) . Pl n t i f f s are co r r ec t t ha t"the j sd ic t iona l element and he ng i rement of 2239(a)a re not coextens ive ," . , however, only to demonstra te t ha t theCour t o f Appeals has j u r i on over " a l l 1 orders in

(Continued from prev ioushear ing upon the reques t o f any person whose i n t e r e s tmay be af fec ted by the proceeding , and s ha l l admit anysuch person as a par ty to such proceeding.

22



23/41

I s

l i cens ing edings whether or no t a hear ing before theCommission occurred or could have occurred ." Id . (quotingFlor ida Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729, 737 (1985)) .The Supreme Cour t Lorion held "Congress in tended toprovide fo r i n i t cour t o f appeals review o f a l l f i n a l orders

l i cens ing p whether o r no t a hear ing be th eCommission occurred or could have occur red ." 470 U.S. a t 737.

re fo re , a hear would no t be a t ion preceden t to th eCour t of Appeals ' j sd ic t ion under Hobbs Act . Id .However, in order to rmine j u r i s d i on the Court o fhad to determine whe r the sub jec t mat te r of the appea l wasre l a t ed to l i cens ing .

In the end, the Cour t of Appeals th e NRC'sd i s t ion o f exemptions from amendments concluding t h a t itd id not have j u r i s d i c t i on , pursuan t to 2239(a) . Brodsky, 578F. a t 180 ("The NRC ta s t h i s s tance to avoid having to holdhear ings for exemptions; bu t by as se r t ing exemptions a red i f from amendments, a pos i t ion to which we defe r , th e NRCnecess ly deprives us o f a b i l i t y to exemptionspursuan t to 2239(a) . " ) . Here, the Cour t rs as well to theNRC's reasonab le d i s t i n c t i o n between exemptions and amendmentsand to i t s conclus ion t h a t in t h i s case the NRC o rd e rcons t i an exemption. s , because 2239(a) does notr e f e r to exemptions no hear was requi red .

23



24/41

Second, Pla in t i f f s as s e r t t ha t " the AEA r equ i r es a publ ichear ing if the NRC t akes an act ion t h a t r e su l t s in a'modi f ica t ion of a rule or r egu la t ion . ' " Pla in t i f f s argue t h a tby grant ing the exemption changing f i re i nsu la t ionrequirement a t IP3, the NRC modi the ru l e s or regula t ions .

s argument misses the mark a l so . The Commission could havemodified the f i r e sa fe ty regula t ions themselves bu t d id not doso. Ins tead , it granted an exemption, based on a case-by-case

review, to one pa r t i cu la r i l i t y , suant to 10 C.F.R. 50.12. Therefore , the exemption does not t r igge r 2239(a) ' smandatory hear ing requirements .

Third, Pla in t i f f s argue t ha t NRC has a regula toryrequirement t ha t " the publ ic be given not ice of a proposed' s i gn i f i can t modif ica t ion ' to a l i c ense and a t h i r t y -day per iodto comment on the s ign i f i can t modi ca t ion . " (PIs . Mem. Opp. 1112. ) ; see 10 C.F.R. 50.91(a) ; 10 C.F.R. 2.104. Pla ias s e r t t ha t the "IPEC 'exemption ' s igni cant ly modif ies theac t ions , r e spons ib i l i t i e s and obI ions of the l i censee , andas such i s subjec t to hear ing requirements o f 10 C.F.R.50.91(a) ." (PIs. Mem. Opp. 13. ) Like 2239(a) , t h i s sec t iononly appl ies to an appl ion fo r a l i cense amendment and thusi s not appl icab le here r the same reasons . The very language

t h i s sec t ion s t a t e s t h a t it only appl ies to a " s i gn i can tmodif icat ion" to a l i cense .

24



25/41

I t i s well s e t t l t h a t the "gran t of an exemption from agener ic requirement does not cons t i tu t e an amendment tor e a c to r ' s l i cense t ha t would t r igge r hearing r i gh t s . " Kelley v.Sel 42 F.3d 1501, 1517 (6th Cir . 1995); see Massachuset ts v.

1516, 1522 (1s t Ci r .1989) ("A ar ing i s mandatory only when proceeding concernsthe ' g r an t ing , suspending, revoking, or amending' of thel i c e ns e . " ) ; Eddleman v. Nuclear 825 F.2d 46,49 (4 t h C i r . 1987) (af rming NRC's order gran t ing exemptionwithout hold ing a hearing because the exemption was unrela ted tol i cens ing) ; Union o f Concerned Sc ient i s t s v. U.S. NuclearRegulatory Comm'n, 735 F.2d 1437, 1443 (D.C. Cir . 1984)(sus ta in ing "NRC's reading sect ion 189(a) t o g ran t ahear ing only as to the i s sues mater i to the Commission'sl i cens ing c i s i on . " ) . P l a i n t i f f s re ly on B e l l o t t i v. U.S.Nuclear Regula tory Comm'n, 725 F.2d 1380 (D.C. Cir . 1983) tosuppor t t he i r pos ion t h a t a hearing i s mandatory. However,t ha t case i s inappos i te . In Bel l o t t i , the re was no doubt t ha tthe order cons t i tu t ed a l i cense amendment. There was nodisagreement t ha t 2239(a) appl ied . The only i s sue was whetherthe s t a t e ' s at torney genera l could in te rvene and pa r t i c ipa t e inthe hear ing .

The exemptions here are unre la ted to l i censing . There re ,t h i s Court fo l lows the guidance of the severa l c i r c u i t cour t s

25



26/41

have de fe r red to Commission's d is on to no t gran tfo r exemptions.

a

C. The APA Does Not Require a Publ ic HearingPl a i n t i f f s argue tha t , suant to th e APA, 5 U.S.C. 554,

i s requi red se "exemption" process used bythe NRC was (1) "not in accordance with law," (2) " excess ofs t a tu j u r i sd i c t i on , " o as the modi f ica t ion of AppendixR v ia an "exemption" was u l t r a res and (3) "wi

observance of procedure requ i by law" as se t Sect ion189(a) of the AEA (42 U.S.C. 2239). (PIs . Mem. Opp. 15.)

c i t e no case law r these propos i t s .P l a i n t i f f s ' argument under the APA i s the same as under AEA;spec i ca l ly , the Commission s not have au thor i ty to gran texemptions. S on 554 of the APA app l ies only to"adjudicat ion[s ] requi red by s t a t u t e to be determined on therecord a r oppor tuni ty for an hear ing ," 5 U.S.C. 554(a) , and Court of Appeals held t ha t 2239 does notrequi re such a hear ing . ~ S ~ e ~ e__4 ~ 1 ~ ~ N ~ 0 ~ ~ __ __W _ e ~ s ~ t ~ , __I _ n _ c ~ . __v_.__U__._S_.D.O.T. , No. 09-4810-ag, 2010 WL 4318655, a t *5 (2d Cir . Nov. 2,2010) (holding t h a t the APA does no t re a hear ing wherecour t he ld no hearing was requ pursuant to theunder lying s t a t u t e ) . Because the NRC's ac t ions were not unland did not 11 under 2239(a) , APA does not mandate ahear ing .

26

I



27/41

Addi t iona l ly , PIa i n t i argue t ha t Entergy ' s reques t foran exemption did not conform Wl the opt ions provided by theNRC i t s Generic Le t t e r 2006-03 responding to non-con rmingcondi t ions with re spec t to Hymc. However, in the r i c Le t t e runder the sec t ion e n t i t l "Requested Actions" th e NRC s t a t e st h a t cor rec t ive ac t ions must be implemented in accordance wi thexis t ing r egu la t ions . (JA 215.) Defendants argue, cor rec t ly ,t h a t those regula t ions include 10 C.F.R. 50.12, whichauthor izes exemptions. P l a i n t i f f s ' claim t ha t APA mandaa hearing, independent of the AEA requirements , i s withoutmeri t .

D. An Environmental Impact Statement Was Not RequiredOn September 24, 2007, pursuant to NEPA, the NRC i s sued an

EA and FONSI holding t ha t Entergy ' s reques exemption wouldnot s ign i f i c a n t ly a f f e c t the environment . PIa i f f s argue t ha tthe Commission was requ i to i ssue an EIS, which i s morecomprehensive than an EA. The Commission's dec is ion t ha t an EISwas not necessary was not a rb i t r a ry , capr ic ious or an abuse ofd i sc re t ion .

The Supreme Court has descr ibed the purpose o f NEPA as"where an agency act ion s igni f icant ly a f fec t s the qua l i ty of thehuman environment , the cy must eva lua te the ' environmenta limpact ' and any unavoidable adverse environmental e f f e c t s of spropo " Metropol i tan Edison Co. v. People Against Nuclear

27



28/41

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Energy, 460 U.S. 766, 772 (1983) . I t i s impor tan t to note t ha tNEPA "merely proh ib i t s uninformed-ra ther than unwise-agencyac t ion . " Robertson v. Methow332, 351 (1989); accord N.J. of Envt l .

- - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ ~ ~ ~ - - ~ ~ ~ ~ 561 F.3d 132, 134 (3d Cir . 2009).

NEPA mandates t ha t federa l agencies prepare an EIS fo r"major federa l ac t ions s ign i cant ly af ing the qua l i ty o fthe human environment., ,9 42 U.S.C. 4332 (2) (C); see LimerickEcology Action , Inc. v. U.S. Nuclear Regula tory Comm'n, 869 F.2d719, 725 (3d Cir . 1989). The NRC may prepare a more l imi ted EA,

l i eu o f an EIS, if the agency 's proposed ac t ion would notc lea r ly requi re produc t ion o f an EIS.Public t i zen , 541 U.S. 752, 757 (2004) . I f an agencydetermines, pursuant to the EA, t ha t an EIS i s no t requi red then

9 Sec t ion 4332 (2) (C) requ i re s t ha t fede agencies :include in every recommendation or r epor t on proposa l sfor l e g i s l a t i on and othe r major Federa l ac t ionss ign i f i c a n t ly a f ing the qual i ty of th e humanenvironment , a de ta i l ed s ta tement by the respons ib leo c i a l on(i) the environmental impact of the proposed ac t ion ,( i i ) any adverse environmental e f f e c t s which cannot beavoided should the proposa l be implemented,( i i i ) a l te rna t ives to the proposed ac t ion ,(iv) the re l a t ionsh ip between loca l shor t - term uses ofman's environment and the maintenance and enhancementlong- term produc t iv i ty , and(v) any i r r eve rs e and i r r e t r i e va b commitments ofresources which would involved in the proposedact ion should be implemented."

490 u.s.

Nuclear

28



29/41

it must i s sue a FONSI, which "b r i e f l y en t s th e reasons whyth e proposed agency ac t ion w i l l not have a s i g n i f i c a n t impact on

human ronment ." Id . a t 757 58.The Commission l lowed t h i s procedure . See Rober tson, 490

u.S. a t 349-50 ("NEPA i t s e l f does not mandate p a r t i c u l a rr e su l t s , " r a th e r it "imposes on procedura l requirements onfedera l agencies wi th a pa r t i c u l a r focus on r equ i r ing agenciesto undertake ana lyses o f the envi ronmenta l impact o f rproposals and a c t ions . " ) . After conduct ing a sa fe ty eva lua tit i ssued an EA and FONSI concluding t h a t t he re was no majorfedera l ac t ion t h a t would s ig n i t ly a f the environment .(JA 491- 9 4 . ) "An agency dec is ion , based on an EA, t ha t no EISi s requ i red can be over tu rned only if it i s a rb i t r a ry ,capr i c ious , o r an abuse o f di sc " 42 F. 3d a t1518. Courts a re not to "subs t i tu t e ir J judgment ofenvi ronmenta l impact fo r judgment of the agency, once theagency has adequate ly s tudied i s su e . " Id . However, cour t sshould "determine whether agency has , in fac t , adequatelys tudied th e i s sue and taken a ' ha rd look ' a t t environmentalconsequences of i t s de s ion ." Id . a t 1519.

Commission's f inding was reasonab le . The EA and FONSIdiscuss the sion of ex i s t ing exemption and r e f e r to themore de ta i l ed sa fe ty eva lua t ion (JA 474-490) i s sued along withthe approval of exemption. The EA concludes t h a t " the

29



30/41

proposed ac t ion w i l l not s i g n i f i c a n t l y inc rease th e probab i t yof consequences of acc iden t s . u (JA 492.) It di scusse s variousenvi ronmenta l impacts and f inds t h a t rev i s ion to theex is t ing exemptions from 1987 w i l l have no ad d i t i o n a lenvi ronmenta l impact . Addi t iona l ly , th e EA found t h a t if th eCommission, in the a l t e rn a t i v e , denied th e exemption app l i ca t ionit would have a s imi l a r l ack o f impact on environmentalana lys i s . (JA 493.) In p l words, if th e Commission ordet h a t the f ac i l i t y comply with th e one-hour requirement it would

th e same r e s u l t in the EA. The NRC argues Pl a i n t i f f signore " the na tu re o f th e regula tory ac t ion u ; r ev i s ions to longs tand ing exemptions fo r tw o d i s c r e t e a reas o f th e p lan t , whichhave been analyzed comprehens ively fo r f i r e r i s ks . (Defs . ' Mem.opp. 13.) Th e Commission 's dec i s ion not to i s sue a more s t rEIS was reasonab and fa r from an abuse o f d i sc re t i o n . 10 Thisi s exac t ly th e type of c i rcumstance where cour t s should fe r toth e NRC's exper t i s e in conduct ing subs tan t ive s a f e tyeva lua t ions .

th e ex ten t a i n t i f f s argue t h a t th e Commission, ining th e EA, should have cons idered the s i b i l i t y of at e r r o r i s t a t t a ck , t h i s should be r e jec ted . The Thi C i r cu i trecen t ly held , in a case invo lv ing renewal of a l i c en s e , t h a tthe NRC d id not need to consider independent ly a t e r ro s ta t tack because th e e f f e c t on th e environment would be no worsethan t h a t of a severe acc iden t a t th e p l a n t . See N.J . ' t o fEnv. Protec t ion v. U.S. Nuclear Regula tory Comm'n, 561 F.3d a t136-44.

10 To

30



31/41

E. Substant ive Challenges to the Commission's DecisionFinal ly , Pla in t i f f s chal lenge the meri ts of the NRC's

decis ion . Pla in t i f f s ra ise severa l arguments including, in te ra l i a , tha t the Commission did not consider re levant andprobat evidence, tha t the adminis t ra t record lackedspeci c documents re l ied upon by the NRC, and tha t theexemption must be inva l id because the Commission's review wasconducted too quickly. Pla in t i f f s ' arguments are without meri t .The record demonstrates tha t the NRC's decision was ne i the rarb i t ra ry nor capr ic ious .

The APA allows courts to se t aside agency act ion tha t i s"arb rary" or "capr ic ious ." 5 U.S.C. 706(2) (A). See F.C.C.v. Fox Televis ion Sta t i 129 S.Ct . 1800, 1810 (2009);Vermont Yankee Nuclear PowerCouncil , Inc . , 435 U.S. 519, 545-549 (1978). This i s a verynarrow standard of review tha t gives subs tan t i a l deference tothe agency act ion . See Fox Televis ion Sta t ions , 129 S.Ct . a t1810. The agency must "examine the relevant data and ar t icu la tea sa t i s fac tory explanation fo r i t s ac t ion ." : . . : M ~ o . . . : : : : . : : = - = - - : . - = : = - : : : . c - = l : . . . : e : . . . - - = M - . . : f - . . : r = - s : : : . - : . . . .

Inc. v Mut. Automobile Ins .Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983). The Supreme Court has made c lea rtha t "a cour t i s not to subst i tute i t s judgment for tha t of theagency" and tha t a cour t should "uphold a decision of less thanideal c la r i ty i f the agency's path may reasonably be discerned."

31



32/41

Fox Television Sta t ions , 129 S. C t. a t 1810 ( ing Bowman419 u.s.

281, 286 (1974) . 1.

i c iousCommission per formed a comprehensive sa ty uat ion in

concluding t h a t Entergy "con t inues to meet th e undepurpose of 10 C.F.R. Par t 50, Appendix R, Subsec t I I . G . 2 . "(JA 502.) The Commission cr ibed the purpose o f Appendix R asa "de se in-depth,,11 approach in tended " to preven t , con tand ly ex t ingu i sh f i r e s , to p r o t e c t s t ru c t u re s ,sys tems, and components necessary a sa fe shutdown ofp l a n t . " Id . In its ana lys i s , NRC s t a f f determined" l i mi i t i on sources plus i s t r a t i v e con t ro l s rede tec t ion / suppre ss ion fea tu re s o f se a reas provided the

11 De in -dep th means:An approach to des ign ing and r a t i n g nuclearf a c i l i t s t h a t preven t s and m it s acc iden t s t h a tre l ea se a t ion or hazardous mate s . The key i screa t ing mul t ip le independent and redundant l ayer s ofdefense to compensate fo r p o t e n t i a l human andmechani l u r e s so t h a t no s l ayer , no mat t e rhow robust , i s exc lus ive ly r e l i e d upon. Defen se - in depth inc ludes th e use of access con t phys ica lba r r i e r s , redundant and d i v e r se key func t ions ,and emergency response measures .

U.S.N.R.C. sary , h t tp : / /www.nrc .gov / rere f /g lossa ry /de fense in -dep th .h tml .

rm/bas ic

32



33/41

requ i s i t e defense- in-depth for sa fe shutdown." Th e NRC Orderapproving the exemption concluded:

The under ly ing purpose of Subsect ion I I I . g .2 of10 CFR Par t 50, Appendix R, i s to ensure t ha t oneof the redundant t r a ins necessary to achieve andmaint hot shutdown condi t ions remains f ree off i re damage the event o f a f i r e . Based on theex i s t ing re bar rs , f i r e de tec to r s , automaticand manual f i re suppress ion equipment,admin is t r a t ive con t ro l s , the f i r e hazardana lys i s , the Hemyc conf igura t ion , and theabsence o f s ign i f i c a n t combustible loads andi gn i t ion sources , NRC s t a f f judgesapp l ica t ion o f Subsect ion I I .G .2 of 10 CFR Par t50, Appendix R, those re areas i s notnecessary to achieve the under lying purpose o fth i s r egu la t

(Revision to Exis t ing Exemptions, 72 Fed.Reg. 56,798 (Oct. 4,2007) .) Pla i f f s dispute the Commission's use o f a defense in-depth approach. According to Pla in t i f f s , the Commissions t a t e s inaccurate ly in s papers t ha t Appendix R requiresde e- in-depth measures. Rather , i a s s e r t t ha t"Appendix R conta s spec i c, i ronclad requirements for , amongothe r th ings , the amount of t t ha t in a t ion on the cab lest h a t contro l r eac to r shutdown must su rv ive . " (Pls . Mem. Opp.1 .) However, P l a i n t i f f s ignore very language o f Appendix R.Under "General Requirements ," Appendix R descr ibes the purposeo f the ru le as de se - in -dep th :

The f i re pro tec t ion program s ha l l extend theconcept of defense- in-depth to f i re pro tec t ion inre a reas important to sa fe ty , with thefol lowing ob jec t ives :

33



34/41

To prevent f i r e s from s t a r t i ng ;To de tec t id ly , contro l , and ext inguish promptly those res t ha t do occur; To prov i pro tec t ion fo r s t ru c t u re s , systems, and components important to sa fe ty so t h a t a f i r e t ha t i s no t promptly ex t ingu i shed by th e f i r e suppress ion a c t i v i t i e s 11 not prevent th e sa fe shutdown o f the p lan t .

10. C.F.R. P t. 50, App. R, I I .A. Contrary to P la in t i f f s 'asse r t ion , the purpose of Appendix R i s to s a t i s f y the threeobjec t ives o f "defense- in-depth" l i s t ed above.

As to the r s t fense in-depth ob jec t ive , the Commissioneva lua ted the l ike l ihood and sever i ty of re s in the ETN-4 andPAB-2 re Areas. (JA 502-03.) The NRC was s a t i s f i e d t h a t"admin i s t ra t ive con t ro l s of ho t work and t r a ns i e n t combust ibleshave improved s ince the previous exemptions." (JA 506.) Fire

Areas ETN-4 and PAB-2 were now l abe led "Level 2" combust ib lecontro l areas , which l imi ted t r a ns i e n t combust ibles in thoseareas to "moderate" quan t i s . Addi t iona l ly , anyt r ans t combust ib les t ha t may exceed the a l lowable l im i t wouldnot be al lowed in to the f i re zones without a pr io r eva lua t ion bya Fire Pro tec t Engineer and fu r ther compensatory measures .(JA 507.) Th e Commission concluded t h a t po te n t i a l i gn i t ionsources in the f i re areas had only a "combined f i r e sever i ty of

ss than 10 minutes ." (JA 507.) According to the NRC, thecables were asbes tos - jacketed , and the "flame re t a rdan t

34



35/41

characte s t i c s N of th i s cable ensured any f i re would notreach s ign i f i c a n t degrees . Id . As such, the Commission foundt ha t t ha t f i r s t defense- in-depth object ive was achi(Id. )

Second, based on the f i re de tec t ion and suppress ion systems inthe two f i re zones, th e Commission staff" termined t ha t anypos tu la ted f i r e i s expected to be promptly t ec t ed by th eava i lab le automatic f i re on systems re Area ETN-4(Fire Zone 60A) and Fire Area PAB-2 (Fire Zone l ) .NCommission discussed the adminis t ra t ive procedures in place andfound t ha t the second objec t ive of defense- in was met.Final ly , the Commission determined t ha t based on the l imi ted

i t ion sources , the adminis t ra t ive contro ls p lace , and there de tec t ion and suppress ion gran t ing the exemption

"would not impact IP3 pos t - f i r e sa shutdown i l i t y " asi r ed under ec t ive th ree . (JA 508.)

Further , the Commission evaluated th e f i r e - r e s i s t a n t capac i tyof the Hemyc f i re wrap a t IP3. NRC concluded: " tha t thel i censee has adequa te ly demonstrated a 30-minute r a ted f i re wrapfor [F i re Area PAB-2 conf igura t ions ] . The [conf i ion inFi re Area ETN-4] has adequate ly demonstra ted to provide a24-minute r a ted f i re wrap." (JA 504-05.) According to NRC,the tw o c r i t i c a l cons idera t ions were ex i s t ing s ionfrom othe r f i re areas by 3-hour r a ted re ba r r i e r s and

35



36/41

automat ic and manual re de tec t ion fea tu res in two reareas . (JA 505.)

As many cour t s have emphasized, it i s not the ro le of thecour t s to s ubs t i t u t e t he i r judgment fo r subs tant ivedec is ions of th e Commiss See Duke Power 770F.2d a t 390; N. Anna 53 3 F.2d a t 659. After- - - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ reviewing the admin i s t ra t ive record, it i s apparen t t ha t th eCommission conducted a de ta i l ed eva lua t ion , considered thefac tors l i s t e d the c i f i c regu la t ions and in the end ac tedreasonably. See Brodsky, 578 F.3d a t 182 ("Ul t imately theagency 's judgment, if reasonable , must p re v a i l . " )

P l a i n t i f f s ' remaining arguments are a l so without me t .Pl a i n t i f f s contend t ha t the Commission mischarac te r ized therecord , e i t he r by excluding proba t ive documents or by inc ludingdocuments improperly . O ~ h e r rcu s h a v e Id t h a t theCommission, in conduct ing a performance-based sa fe ty review,should no t be l imi ted to f ac t s in the record . See Eddleman, 825F.2d a t 48-49 (holding " tha t th e Commission was no t i n e r ro r inexamining f ac t s outs ide the formal record") ; see also Mass. v.U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n, 878 F.2d a t 1524 ("TheCommonwealth's argument t ha t the NRC has 'mischarac te r ized ' and' d i s t o r t e d ' the record i s , in r ea l i t y , a complain t t h a t th e NRCdid not g ive grea te r weight to evidence provided by s t a t e andloca l of f i c I s and drew conclusions from the evidence t ha t were

36



37/41

d i f f e re n t than the one ' s the Commonwealth would have wished.This, however, does not make the NRC's ac t ion a rb i t r a ry o rcapr ic ious , and it i s not us to reassess the evidence,")Likewise, P l a i n t i f f s here merely disagree with th e Commission'sdec i s ion to place emphasis on cer t a in s of th e ana lys i sr a th e r than on o ther s . The Cour t w i l l not r eas ses s thesubstance of the evidence. This i s exac t ly the type o fsUbstan t ive review t h a t cour t s should accord ference to i f , ashere , it i s reasonab le .

Moreover, P n t i f do not i den t i fy which spec i cdocuments were not conside (or , a l t e rna t ive ly , r e l i e d uponunlawful ly) t h a t would inva l ida te the Commission's dec i s ion .The NRC's f i n a l order addres comprehensively the d i f f e r e n tf ac to r s under 10 C.F.R. 50.12 for grant ing an exemption. Atora l argument, P l a i n t i f f s argued t h a t the exemption 0 r madere fe rence to a" re Hazards Analys is" study conducted byEntergy, which was not in the record and the re fo re as a mat te rof law, the cour t should f ind t h a t Commission's dec is ion wascont ra ry to law. The Cour t sagrees .

In the exemption order , the Commission wrote t h a t "[b]asedupon cons ide ra t ion o f the information in the l i c e ns e e ' s reHazards Analys is ; admin i s t ra t ive con t ro l s fo r t r a ns i e n tcombust ib les and i gn i t ion sources; prev ious ly -g ran ted exemptionsfo r t h i s f i r e zone; and th e cons idera t ions noted above, th e NRC

37



38/41

s ta concludes t ha t th i s exemption meets underlying purposethe (JA 510.) The Commission argued t ha t while there

i s no document t i t l e d Fire Hazards analys is in th e record, theinformat ion and documents comprising the ana lys i s are in therecord. The Court l imi t s i t s review to documents inadminis t ra t ive record. 12 See Lorion, 470 U.S. a t 743-44 ("Thetask of reviewing cour t i s to y the appropr ia te APAs tandard of review, 5 U.S.C. 706, to the agency decis ion basedon record the agency presents to reviewing cour t . "(c i t ing Cit izens to Prese 401 U.S. 402(1971), abrogated on other grounds by, Cali fano v. Sande 430U.S. 99 (1977))) . r reviewing the record , and in accordancewith the sUbs tan t i deference due to an agency under the APA,it i s ear t ha t the Commission's act ion was ne r a rb i t r a ry12 The 914-page record, comprised twenty-e igh t documents from

NRC, inc ludes several s tud ies memoranda concerningEntergy ' s and Commission's review and ana lys i s . The recordcont the exemption app l ica t ions and analys is from 1984 and1987 as wel l . (JA 62, 114, 127.) The July 24, 2006, Entergysubmission reques t ing a revis ion of s t ing exemptions (JA234), inc ludes as Attachment 1 (JA 237) the conclus s ofEntergy enginee eva ion. Also included, among otherdocuments, are i n t e rna l memorandum from the NRC examiningthe t e s t resu l t s fo r indust ry-sponsored Hemyc Ie (JA 252);memorandum from the ch i e f of NRC Divis ion of Operat ingReactor Licensing reques t ing supplemental in rmat ion fromEntergy in order to eva lua te t he i r reques t (JA 275); a reques tto Entergy fo r add i t iona l information (JA 278); a supplementalresponse answering the Commission's addi t ional in rmationreques ts (JA 444, 451); i n t e rna l memorandum from the NRC reProtect ion Branch enclos ing i t s safe ty evaluat ion repor t (JA472); the EA and FONSI i s sued by NRC (JA 487); and theSeptember 28, 2007 Exemption (JA 495) .

38



39/41

nor capr i ous. The Court wi l l not s ubs t i t u t e i t s own judgmentt ha t of Commission and wi l l not demand " ide c l

where the "the agency's path may reasonably be discerned. ff SeeFox Televis ion S t a t i , 129 S.Ct . a t 1810.

Pl a i n t i f ' f i na l argument i s t ha t the Commission gran tedEntergy ' s exemption too quickly . There i s no foundat ion to t h i sclaim, in f ac t or law. There i s nothing suspic ious about theamount of t ime it took the Commission to review the reques t ( thei n i t i a l reques t was on July 24, 2006 (JA 234) and the exemptionwas granted on September 28, 2007-approximately fourteen monthsl a t e r ) . Also s ign i f i c a n t ly , these were r ev i s ions to e a r l i e rgranted exemptions on an i s sue t ha t the Commission had reviewedprevious ly .

The APA requires a cour t to s e t as ide agency ac t ion if itappears in the record t ha t such act ion i s " a rb i t r a ry ,capr ic ious , an abuse o f d i sc re t ion , or otherwise not inaccordance with law." Here, re i s nothing in the record t ha tdemonstrates such. The Commission based i t s decis ion "on acons idera t ion of the r e levan t fac tors . " Ci t izens to PreserveOverton Park v. Vo 401 U.S. 402, 416 (1971); see Du Power,770 F.2d a t 389 90. Entergy ' s app l ica t ion requested s ionsto exemptions gran ted more than twenty years ago. TheCommission engaged in a subs tan t ive ana lys i s of the IP3 ' s safe tymeasures before grant ing the r ev i exempt ions.

39



40/41

This i s a case where deference to th e subs tan t ive dec i s ionof the Commission, as it re la te s to nuc lear s a f e ty , i swarranted .

40



41/41

I I I . CONCLUSIONFor the foregoing reasons, Defendant ' s motion fo r summary

judgment [dkt . no. 5] i s granted in i t s e n t i r e ty . The Clerk o fthe Court s ha l l mark t h i s ac t ion c losed and a l l pending motionsdenied as moot.SO ORDERED:

Dated: March 4, 2011New York, New York

LORETTA A. PRESKACHIEF United Sta tes D i s t r i c t Judge


Documents

Brodsky v NRC Decision