Opinion ID: 216911
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: The NRC's Safety Findings and the NRC's Denial of Citizens' Motion to Reopen the Administrative Record to Admit the Inspection Report

Text: Citizens next raise a host of arguments challenging the NRC's decision to reject the Frequency Contention and to find that Exelon had demonstrated reasonable assurance that it would safely operate Oyster Creek. First, Citizens claim that the NRC did not make a definitive finding, as is required, see Power Reactor Dev. Co. v. Int'l Union of Elec., Radio, and Mach. Workers, 367 U.S. 396, 409-10, 81 S.Ct. 1529, 6 L.Ed.2d 924 (1961), that issuing a license renewal will not be dangerous to the health and safety of the public. Citizens base this assertion on the NRC's statement in the Final Decision that, [s]ubject to the considerations we discuss below ... [,] we agree with the Board's finding that the ultrasonic testing program provides reasonable assurance that the drywell liner will not violate the acceptance criteria. 69 N.R.C. at 263. Citizens' interpretation of the NRC's decision is incorrect. The Final Decision affirmed the Board's Initial Decision, rejected the Frequency Contention, and the NRC took review of the petition for two limited purposes: (1) it clarified that Exelon's commitment to perform a 3-D analysis was consistent with Judge Baratta's concerns, and (2) it directed the Staff to ensure that Judge Baratta's objective was achieved. The language Citizens rely on was not a qualification on the NRC's safety findings, but rather a qualification on the denial of the petition for review. The NRC made clear that it rendered the requisite safety findings when it noted: Let us be clear: the Board's fundamental conclusion in [the Initial Decision], authorizing issuance of the renewed license, stands on its own. Id. at 282 n. 271. The NRC upheld the Board's exhaustive factual findings and we determine that there is no error in this ruling. Second, Citizens raise several issues concerning the denial of their motion to reopen the administrative record to add the inspection report. As a primary matter, Citizens claim that the NRC improperly required them to demonstrate a significant safety issue. Next, Citizens maintain that the NRC impermissibly referred unresolved safety issues to the Staff to develop more information post-hearing. Finally, Citizens assert that the inspection report revealed unresolved safety issues. The NRC denied the motion to reopen, pointing out that the Staff had determined that no findings of significance were identified. Id. at 288. More specifically, the NRC rejected Citizens' claim that because water was found in the sand bed region during the course of the relicensing proceedings, Exelon's commitment to detect corrosion was deficient. The NRC pointed out that there were several methods to uncover potential corrosion, despite any problems identified in the inspection report, and Citizens provided no expert support to contradict that finding. Instead, Citizens offered an affidavit from Dr. Hausler in which he speculated regarding causes for the observed corrosion. The NRC concluded that affidavit did not meet the requirements of 10 C.F.R. § 2.326(b) because it did not contain specific factual and/or technical bases to support Citizens' arguments. The NRC's conclusions did not constitute an abuse of discretion. As to Citizens' first argument, the regulations place the burden on Citizens, the petitioner, to demonstrate the existence of a significant safety issue in seeking to reopen the administrative record. See 10 C.F.R. § 2.326(a)(1)-(3). Citizens' argument regarding delegation to the Staff also lacks merit. See Mass. v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n, 924 F.2d 311, 331 (D.C.Cir. 1991) (noting that the NRC may refer minor safety matters not pertinent to its basic findings for post-hearing resolution). Given that the Staff concluded that the inspection report raised no significant safety issues, this was an appropriate course of action. Finally, Citizens' claim that there were unresolved safety issues essentially boils down to their disagreement as to the significance of the issues raised in the inspection report. The NRC relied on the Staff's recommendation that the inspection report did not present a significant safety issue, as well as factual findings that there were other methods to effectively detect future corrosion. Further, the NRC was justified in finding that Dr. Hausler's affidavit was deficient given that it only offered speculation as to the cause of the corrosion and failed to offer supporting evidence, falling short of the requirements in 10 C.F.R. § 2.326(b). The NRC had a substantial basis to conclude that the inspection report did not demonstrate a significant safety or environmental issue and that a materially different result ... would have been likely had the report been admitted. 10 C.F.R. § 2.326(a)(1)-(3). Although the NRC's decision was not unanimous, the majority based their decision on facts in the record and reasonably applied their technical expertise. Our role is not to weigh the evidence, but [rather] to determine whether substantial evidence supports the Commission's decision. Limerick Ecology, 869 F.2d at 753. We determine that the NRC properly exercised its discretion in ruling that Exelon demonstrated reasonable assurance that it could operate Oyster Creek, and that the inspection report did not raise a significant safety issue justifying reopening of the record.