Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/711/370/302161/
Timestamp: 2019-11-17 07:29:26
Document Index: 333276282

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 553', '§ 2239', '§ 553', '§ 553', '§ 553', '§ 553', '§ 706', '§ 2237', '§ 2237', '§ 2239', '§ 17']

Union of Concerned Scientists, Petitioner, v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and United States of America,respondents,nuclear Utility Group on Equipment Qualification, Intervenor, 711 F.2d 370 (D.C. Cir. 1983) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › D.C. Circuit › 1983 › Union of Concerned Scientists, Petitioner, v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and United States of Ame...
Union of Concerned Scientists, Petitioner, v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and United States of America,respondents,nuclear Utility Group on Equipment Qualification, Intervenor, 711 F.2d 370 (D.C. Cir. 1983)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit - 711 F.2d 370 (D.C. Cir. 1983) Argued May 19, 1983. Decided June 30, 1983
Frustrated by grudging cooperation from licensees, the NRC in 1980 issued a new order that upgraded its documentation requirement even further. In dismissing a UCS petition to reconsider the 1978 Order, the Commission noted that "some licensees ha [d] ignored" their responsibility and had displayed "a disregard for [the] environmental qualification problem." 1980 Order, supra, 11 N.R.C. at 712, 713 (JA 66, 67). Accordingly, " [i]n order to leave room for no doubt on this issue," the Commission set in motion a process that would elevate its documentation demands to the status of license conditions. Id. at 712 (JA 66). In addition, the NRC ordered that all safety-related electrical equipment in all operating plants be qualified by June 30, 1982. Id. at 714-15 (JA 68-69). The compliance deadline was incorporated into the license conditions and technical specifications of each licensee by individual orders dated October 24, 1980.9 Finally, the Commission stated that the new deadline did not "excuse a licensee from the obligation to modify or replace inadequate equipment promptly." Id. at 715 (JA 69). Thus, if during the course of its ongoing review, the Staff found "poor" documentation of qualification, or if documentation "raise [d] questions about the ability of the equipment to perform its intended function in accident conditions," the Staff " [would] make a technical judgment regarding continued operation." Id. In other words, the Commission made no finding that operation would necessarily be safe or unsafe until June 30, 1982; that question was entrusted to the technical judgment of the Staff on a case-by-case basis during the course of its ongoing review.
Thus, on June 30, 1982--the deadline established in 1980 for completion of environmental qualification--the NRC promulgated the interim rule, which amended all operating licenses by indefinitely suspending that deadline.17 The Commission expressly noted the interim nature of its suspension and indicated that the interim rule "will be superseded by the final rule bearing the same section number." Interim Rule, supra note 17, at 28,363, col. 2 (JA 1). The Commission remarked that it had expected to publish a final rule before June 30, but "this ha [d] not proved possible." Id., col. 1 (JA 1). Relying on the "good cause" exception to the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 553(b) (B) (1976) (APA), the NRC justified dispensing with public notice and comment as follows:
The instant petition to review the interim rule was docketed in August. On January 6, 1983, the Commission promulgated its promised final rule.18 The substantive criteria for environmental qualification are essentially the same as those provided in the proposed rule. Also like the proposed rule, the final rule stops short of setting actual deadlines for completing the qualification program. Instead, the rule calls for the establishment of "schedules" with the "goal" of ultimate qualification by "the second refueling outage after March 31, 1982 or March 31, 1985, whichever is earlier." Final Rule, supra note 18, at 2733, col. 3 (JA 445). The final rule expressly supersedes the interim rule. Id. at 2730, col. 3, 2732, col. 2 (JA 442, 444). The NRC also concluded that " [n]o changes to license or technical specifications are necessary to reflect these new completion dates." Id. at 2730, col. 3 (JA 442).
Finally, the Commission deleted from its final rule the proposed rule's requirement that licensees submit justifications for continued operation pending completion of the qualification program. The Commission bottomed this deletion on the rather cryptic remark that " [t]his requirement has been satisfactorily met." Id. at 2732, col. 2 (JA 444). Apparently, this remark alludes to a statement in the interim rule which interpreted the proposed rule19 as holding out a promise that,
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Excuse me. The one thing I guess I will have to take exception to is we have removed something from the final rule [i.e., the requirement that justifications for continued operation be submitted], and the grounds of the removal were that the justification has been satisfactorily provided. That is the rationale we used. So that is past history. It really has to be [:] is the justification that has been provided satisfactory to lead to removal of that requirement out of the rule. That is past history, but it is important past history.
Transcript of Commission Affirmation Session on Final Rule at 34-35 (Jan. 6, 1983) (JA 449-50) (emphasis added). Indeed, respondent elsewhere concedes that, unlike previous reports focusing on justifications for continued operation, these particular reports "were limited to evaluating the licensees' resolution of the deficiencies [in asserted qualification] identified in the staff's SERs and to evaluating the qualification documentation submitted by the licensees." Brief for Respondent at 14 n. 4 (emphasis added). In other words, the "extensive [ ] supplement [ation]" to which respondent refers related to qualification, not to justification, which the Commission regarded as "past history" when promulgating the final rule. The validity of the interim rule's safety finding thus remains a live issue.21
It is evident, therefore, that this petition is not moot in the constitutional sense. The dispute is not "abstract, feigned or hypothetical," and no advisory opinion is sought on an issue which lacks the "impact of actuality." Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40, 57, 88 S. Ct. 1889, 1900, 20 L. Ed. 2d 917 (1968); accord Alton & Southern Ry. v. International Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, 463 F.2d 872, 877 (D.C. Cir. 1972). The allegedly invalid safety finding retains its vitality as a predicate to the final rule, and the Commission has thus preserved the "case or controversy" that is the gravamen of this litigation. Cf. Pickus v. United States Board of Parole, 507 F.2d 1107, 1111 (D.C.1974) (Where superseding agency actions repeat the same alleged procedural error, they "preserve, rather than moot, the original controversy.").
42 U.S.C. § 2239(a) (1976). The June 30, 1982 interim rule is plainly a "proceeding" for the "amending of [a] license" within the meaning of section 189(a), since it excised from all operating licenses the compliance deadline established by the 1980 Order. The rulemaking is also a "proceeding for the issuance of rules and regulations dealing with the activities of licensees"; the NRC designated its action as a " [f]inal rule," Interim Rule, supra note 17, at 28,363, col. 1 (JA 1), and the Commission does not now dispute that designation. Whether characterized as a license amendment or as a rulemaking, the Commission's action runs afoul of the express terms of section 189(a), which unequivocally requires notice and opportunity to comment for both types of proceedings.24 Nor can the Commission justify dispensing with notice and comment on the ground that these amendments "involve [ ] no significant hazards determination," as the Commission now insists that the only conceivable finding that might pass for such a determination--the "no undue risk" finding--is an "ancillary finding" lacking any legal effect. Brief for Respondent at 29.
The only basis given in the rule for dispensing with notice and comment is an allusion to the "good cause" exception of the APA.25 Interim Rule, supra note 17, at 28,363, col. 3 (JA 1). The propriety of reliance on that exception is discussed below. See pages 381-383 infra. But even assuming arguendo that the NRC properly interpreted the scope of the exception, the Commission has failed to justify its departure from the strictures of section 189(a). The hearing and notice requirements of the Atomic Energy Act are not subject to the "good cause" exception of the APA. The APA provides that an agency may have recourse to the exception " [e]xcept when notice or hearing is required by statute." 5 U.S.C. § 553(b) (1976) (emphasis added). As its terms clearly indicate, section 189(a) is just such a statute. The Commission's rationale for dispensing with notice and comment would permit the general rulemaking provisions of the APA to swallow the more specific command of the Atomic Energy Act. Such a result would mock the fundamental maxim of statutory construction that the terms of a more specific statute take precedence over those of a more general statute where both statutes speak to the same concerns. Busic v. United States, 446 U.S. 398, 406, 100 S. Ct. 1747, 1752, 64 L. Ed. 2d 381 (1980).26 The specific requirement of section 189(a) may not be circumvented through the "good cause" exception of the APA.
On their face, these rules admit no exception to the affording of notice and comment in rulemaking. The NRC has chosen to confine its discretion solely to the regulation of the manner in which comment can take place. And having chosen to grant interested persons "additional procedural rights in the exercise of [its] discretion," Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, Inc., 435 U.S. 519, 524, 98 S. Ct. 1197, 1202, 55 L. Ed. 2d 460 (1978), the agency is bound by its own rules. United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 695-96, 94 S. Ct. 3090, 3101, 41 L. Ed. 2d 1039 (1974); Vitarelli v. Seaton, 359 U.S. 535, 539-40, 79 S. Ct. 968, 972-73, 3 L. Ed. 2d 1018 (1959); Service v. Dulles, 354 U.S. 363, 388-89, 77 S. Ct. 1152, 1165, 1 L. Ed. 2d 1403 (1957).
NRC appears to predicate its claimed right to forego notice and comment on its use of the word "manner," as if affording no opportunity to comment is one way of regulating the manner of commenting. See Brief for Respondent at 30-31. While considerable deference is to be accorded the Commission's interpretation of its own rules, North Anna Environmental Coalition v. NRC, 533 F.2d 655, 662-63 (D.C. Cir. 1976), this interpretation does violence to the language of the rule and, as Judge John Sanborn once remarked, gives the regulation a "curious, narrow, hidden sense that nothing but the exigency of a hard case and the ingenuity and study of an acute and powerful intellect would discover." Lynch v. Alworth-Stephens Co., 294 F. 190, 194 (8th Cir. 1923) (quoted in Lynch v. Alworth-Stephens Co., 267 U.S. 364, 370, 45 S. Ct. 274, 276, 69 L. Ed. 660 (1925)). When an agency's interpretation of its own rules flies in the face of the language of the rules themselves, it is owed no deference. Shepherd v. MSPB, 652 F.2d 1040, 1043 (D.C. Cir. 1981).
The APA provides that notice and comment may be avoided upon a showing that "notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest." 5 U.S.C. § 553(b) (B) (1976). The two reasons given by the Commission as constituting good cause--its inability to promulgate a final rule on time and its reluctance to place licensees in jeopardy of enforcement action pending issuance of the final rule--are insufficient.
Our cases make clear that the exception is confined to emergency actions which are "indeed rare," American Federation of Government Employees v. Block, 655 F.2d 1153, 1157 n. 6 (D.C. Cir. 1981), and that "the mere existence of deadlines for agency action ... [does] not in itself constitute good cause." Council of Southern Mountains, Inc. v. Donovan, 653 F.2d 573, 581 (D.C. Cir. 1981). In fact, courts have routinely declined to sanction recourse to the exception because of an impending deadline. See, e.g., NRDC v. EPA, 683 F.2d 752 (3d Cir. 1982); National Association of Farmworkers v. Marshall, 628 F.2d 604 (D.C. Cir. 1980).
None of the arguments offered by respondent demonstrate the propriety of its reliance on the exception. NRC seeks to distinguish the case law just noted as involving substantive, not procedural rules. The interim rule, the Commission insists, while not "strictly procedural, ... ha [s] no substantive effect on safety." Brief for Respondent at 34. This apparent reliance on the APA's exception for "procedural rules" or "statements of policy," see 5 U.S.C. § 553(b) (A) (1976), is misplaced. Even assuming arguendo that the "no undue risk" finding is not part of the rule, the NRC has amended plant operating licenses. Such an action is inherently substantive, whatever the Commission's view of its "safety." Moreover, lifting the deadline is not a "statement of policy" akin to announcing an intention not to take enforcement action. Rather, the interim rule alters a binding norm to which licensees must conform. In fact, in promulgating the interim rule the NRC has stripped itself of prosecutorial discretion by legalizing the underlying conduct. See Pickus v. United States Board of Parole, 507 F.2d 1107, 1113 (D.C. Cir. 1974).27
Respondent and intervenor point out that this is not a case in which a deadline alone impelled abrupt agency action. Licensees would have been placed in jeopardy of enforcement action had the deadline not been suspended. Unfortunately, this argument is undercut by the NRC's own adversion to its prosecutorial discretion: the agency could have chosen to take no action or it could have issued, without notice and comment, a "statement of policy" regarding its intent not to enforce the deadline. See 5 U.S.C. § 553(b) (A). Instead, it chose to amend all operating licenses to remove license conditions. While we are reluctant to vacate a rule when an agency could have achieved the same result by doing nothing, the very power to do nothing demonstrates conclusively that the Commission's concern for licensees' "jeopardy" does not rise to the level of an emergency situation falling within the scope of the "good cause" exception. See American Federation of Government Employees v. Block, supra, 655 F.2d at 1157 n. 6.
While the Staff reviewed most of these submittals, those from the 11 older plants participating in the Systematic Evaluation Program (discussed at pages 372-373 supra) were reviewed by the Franklin Research Center under contract to NRC. See Brief for Respondent at 12
Franklin was instructed to match the submitted justifications against a set of four criteria, which permitted operation with unqualified equipment only where (1) redundant environmentally qualified equipment is available to perform essentionally the same function; (2) another system is capable of providing the same function as the unqualified system; (3) the unqualified equipment would have performed its safety function prior to failure; or (4) the plant could be safely shut down in the absence of the unqualified equipment. SECY-82-51, supra note 11, App. A (JA 225). These criteria are essentially identical to those contained in the SERs and in the January 20, 1982 proposed rule (discussed at pages 374-375 infra) .
UCS also contends that the Commission's decision to promulgate the interim rule was "arbitrary, capricious, [or] an abuse of discretion." 5 U.S.C. § 706(2) (A) (1976). Because we reverse on procedural grounds and the record will therefore be supplemented on remand, see Part IV infra, we do not reach petitioner's substantive challenges
We express no opinion on the arguments of the parties on the question whether these amendments must be made by adjudication or whether they fall within that category of license amendments that may be made by rule under section 187 of the Atomic Energy Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2237 (1976). That is a matter for the NRC to determine in the first instance on remand. We merely hold here that notice and an opportunity to comment must be provided whatever administrative route is taken. Section 187 provides that " [t]he terms and conditions of all licenses shall be subject to amendment ... by reason of rules and regulations issued in accordance with the terms of this chapter." 42 U.S.C. § 2237 (emphasis added). Since section 189(a) requires a hearing "in any proceeding for the issuance ... of rules and regulations dealing with the activities of licensees," id. § 2239(a), a license amendment effected pursuant to section 187 but without notice and comment would not be "issued in accordance with the terms of this chapter."
See also Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 489-90, 93 S. Ct. 1827, 1836, 36 L. Ed. 2d 439 (1973) (specific habeas statute overrides the general terms of section 1983); UNIF. STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION ACT § 17, 14 U.L.A. 529 (1980) ("If a general provision conflicts with a special or local provision, they shall be construed, if possible [,] so that effect is given to both. If the conflict between the provisions is irreconcilable, the special or local provision prevails as an exception to the general provision ....")
Even if we were inclined to accept the Commission's oblique invocation of the APA's exception for "procedural rules" and "statements of policy," that is not the rationale used by the NRC to justify dispensing with notice and comment. The NRC plainly relied on the "good cause" exception in paragraph (B) of the APA, not on the exception embodied in paragraph (A) . See Interim Rule, supra note 17, at 28,363, col. 3 (JA 1). We are foreclosed from affirming a decision on a ground different from that relied on by the agency in making the decision. Securities & Exchange Comm'n v. Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194, 196, 67 S. Ct. 1575, 1577, 91 L. Ed. 1995 (1947)