Opinion ID: 391359
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the order for temporary modification of license

Text: 25 The NRC issued without a hearing the Order for Temporary Modification of License (OTML) of June 12, 1980, which substituted off-site dosage limits for release limits in the TMI-2 operating license. The petitioners contend that the NRC's failure to provide a hearing violated section 189(a) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. The first sentence of that section provides in relevant part: 26 In any proceeding under this chapter, for the granting, suspending, revoking, or amending of any license or construction permit ... the Commission shall grant a hearing upon the request of any person whose interest may be affected by the proceeding, and shall admit any such person as a party to such proceeding. 27 The NRC and Metropolitan Edison do not dispute that the OTML constituted a license amendment subject to the terms of section 189(a). They do maintain, however, that under the fourth sentence of the section the Commission could dispense with a hearing. The fourth (and last) sentence of section 189(a) reads: 28 The Commission may dispense with such thirty days' notice and publication with respect to any application for an amendment to a construction permit or an amendment to an operating license upon a determination by the Commission that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. 29 The NRC and the licensee argue that the NRC properly made a finding of no significant hazards consideration with respect to the OTML, and that consequently a hearing was not required. Although the last sentence of section 189(a) only explicitly dispense(s) with ... thirty days' notice and publication upon a determination of no significant hazards consideration, the NRC and the licensee contend that such a determination also permits the Commission to dispense with a hearing because notice and a hearing are inextricable. 16 30 We are convinced that such a finding did not permit the NRC to dispense with a hearing that is otherwise required by section 189(a). 17 This is not the first case in this circuit in which it has been argued that a finding of no significant hazards consideration permits the NRC to issue a license amendment without a hearing. In Brooks v. Atomic Energy Comm'n, 476 F.2d 924, 926 (D.C.Cir.1973) (per curiam ) this court soundly rejected the contention that the fourth sentence in section 189(a) indicate(d) Congressional intent to dispense with hearings in construction permit amendment proceedings ... when the Commission determines that the amendment involves 'no significant hazards consideration.'  Instead this court, after an examination of the legislative history of section 189(a), held that the fourth sentence only dispenses with requirements of notice and publication. Because this circuit has previously rejected the very construction of section 189(a) offered by the NRC and the licensee, 18 the doctrine of stare decisis compels us to hold that the NRC improperly failed to provide a hearing in the instant case. 31 Moreover, even if this court were not bound by stare decisis, we would still adopt the Brooks interpretation of the last sentence of section 189(a). The plain language of section 189(a) dispels any notion that by a finding of no significant hazards consideration the NRC may dispense with the hearing requirement. The fourth sentence makes no mention of the hearing requirement's being lessened, but makes reference only to the requirements of notice and publication. Despite the plain, unambiguous language contained in the last sentence, the NRC and Metropolitan Edison suggest that the requirements of hearing and notice are so intertwined that the reference to notice in the fourth sentence must also comprehend a hearing. While it is true that requirements of notice and hearing are interrelated, it is clear that Congress was not merging them in section 189(a). That is demonstrated by the third sentence of the section where Congress made explicit reference to the hearing requirement. 19 That sentence plainly demonstrates that Congress did indeed intend to disentangle the two requirements of notice and hearing, 20 and to lessen the mandatory hearing requirement only when there was no request for a hearing. Brooks v. Atomic Energy Comm'n, 476 F.2d at 927. 32 A review of the legislative history of the 1962 amendments to section 189(a) by which the last two sentences of the section were added also firmly persuades us that the Brooks court properly construed the last sentence of section 189(a). That history demonstrates that the 1962 amendments to section 189(a) had their origin in congressional concern over a hearing requirement in uncontested cases that is, when a hearing had not been requested. 21 Representative of that concern was the statement by Raoul Berger, serving as an American Bar Association spokesperson, that 33 14 out of 15 of (the Atomic Energy Commission's) cases have been uncontested. And the central problem appears to be whether trial-type proceedings should be employed under sections 7 and 8 of the Administrative Procedures (sic ) Act in uncontested cases .... 34 AEC Regulatory Problems: Hearings on H.R. 12336 and S. 3491 Before the Subcomm. on Legislation of the Joint Comm. on Atomic Energy, 87th Cong., 2d Sess. 64 (1962) (statement of Raoul Berger) (emphasis added). 22 Accord, e. g., id. at 32 (statement of Herzel H. E. Plaine, Chairman, Special Comm. on Atomic Energy Law, ABA). Thus an interpretation of section 189(a) that would permit the NRC to issue a contested license amendment without a hearing would enlarge section 189(a) beyond the scope originally intended. 23 35 The 1962 Report of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy also suggests that Congress perceived the changes to section 189(a) as permitting the NRC to dispense only with notice and publication not a hearing upon a finding of no significant hazards consideration: 36 In the absence of a request for a hearing, issuance of an amendment to a construction permit, or issuance of an operating license, or an amendment to an operating license, would be possible without formal proceedings, but on the public record.... 37 .... 38 Finally, it is expected that the authority given AEC to dispense with notice and publication would be exercised with great care and only in those instances where the application presented no significant hazards consideration. 39 H.R.Rep.No.1966, 87th Cong., 2d Sess. 8 (1962), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1962, pp. 2207, 2214, S.Rep.No.1677, 87th Cong., 2d Sess. 8 (1962), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1962, pp. 2207, 2214 (emphasis added). And in a committee hearing one year prior, the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy had noted: 40 When no substantial safety question is involved in ... the amendment ... the public interest would be protected by ... publication of an apt notice in the Federal Register 24 and the giving of an opportunity to any interested party to intervene.... 41 Staff of the Joint Comm. on Atomic Energy, 87th Cong., 1st Sess., Improving the Regulatory Process, Vol. II, at 49-50 (Comm. Print 1961) (emphasis added). The language of the reports, consonant with the plain meaning of section 189(a), thus indicates that the section only permits the NRC to issue a license amendment without a hearing when there has been no hearing request. 25 42 Statements by Representative Holifield, Chairman of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, and Senator Pastore, Vice-Chairman, on the floors of their respective houses further reinforce the language in the reports. Both individuals explicitly stated that the amendment (to section 189(a)) in no way limits the right of an interested party to intervene and request a hearing at some later stage, nor does it affect the right of the Commission to hold a hearing on its own motion. 108 Cong.Rec. 16,548 (1962) (remarks of Rep. Holifield); see id. at 15,746 (remarks of Sen. Pastore). The interpretation that the NRC and the public utilities press upon us, 26 however, would limit( ) the right of an interested party to intervene and request a hearing. 43 In sum, we are confident that Brooks was properly decided and that it dictates the construction that must be attached to the last sentence of section 189(a). Because the NRC's finding of no significant hazards consideration did not entitle the Commission to dispense with a requested hearing prior to issuance of the OTML, we hold that its failure to provide a hearing violated section 189(a) of the Atomic Energy Act.IV. THE NRC'S MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 44 The second order issued by the NRC on June 12, 1980, entitled Memorandum and Order (Venting Order), authorized Metropolitan Edison to vent the atmosphere of the reactor containment building. Respondents argue that section 189(a) did not require a hearing with respect to the Venting Order because the order was not a license amendment. We reject respondents' description of the order and find that section 189(a) was indeed applicable and, as a consequence, that petitioners were entitled to a hearing on the Venting Order. 45 Section 189(a), quoted in pertinent part in note 2 supra, requires that a hearing be given upon request (i)n any proceeding under this chapter, for the granting, suspending, revoking, or amending of any license or construction permit. 42 U.S.C. § 2239(a) (1976). Respondents maintain that because the Venting Order merely lifted a prior suspension of the licensee's authority to vent, and did not authorize release of a greater amount of radioactive gas than was permitted by the original technical specifications of the operating license, it was not a license amendment. However, on the facts here, this characterization of the Venting Order appears to be nothing more than an after-the-fact rationalization, which finds no support in the record of this case. 46 The NRC's July 20, 1979 Order for Modification of License suspended Metropolitan Edison's authority to operate TMI-2 and directed the licensee to maintain the facility in a shutdown condition in accordance with the approved operating and contingency procedures. 44 Fed.Reg. 45,271 (1979). In a second order, dated February 11, 1980, the NRC recognized that TMI-2's operating license did not permit venting as part of a cleanup operation because the license specifications pertained only to normal operation of the facility: 47 (I)n the present post-accident status of the facility, the license itself does not include explicit provisions or Technical Specifications for assuring the continued maintenance of the plant in a safe, stable condition or for coping with foreseeable off-normal conditions. Moreover, certain portions of the facility's operating license relate to or govern power operation of the facility, the authority for which was suspended by the Order of July 20, 1979. These provisions are now simply inapplicable to the facility in its present post-accident condition. 48 45 Fed.Reg. 11,282 (1980) (emphasis added). The NRC concluded that the facility's operating license should be modified so as to: ... (p)rohibit venting or purging ... until ... approved by the NRC. Id. (emphasis added). 49 There is no indication that this order was intended or perceived as a mere suspension of the licensee's existing authority to vent. In February 1980, it appeared that adequate venting of the reactor building might not be possible under the existing license authority. Consequently, the NRC acted to modify and thus amend the TMI-2 license in order to regulate the plant in an off-normal condition and to facilitate whatever venting scheme might be determined to be necessary. By its very terms, the February 11, 1980 order was a license amendment intended to reflect TMI-2's post-accident condition. Given that the original operating license was inapplicable, the NRC could not simply rely on its terms as authority for the venting. Authority for venting in this case the June 12 Venting Order therefore had to come in the form of a license amendment. 50 The specific language of the June 12 Venting Order further corroborates our interpretation of that order as a license amendment. In the Venting Order, the NRC noted that TMI-2 was being operated according to the provisions of the February 11, 1980 order, see 2 Nuclear Reg.Rep. (CCH) P 30,498.01, at 29,456 (1980), and the Venting Order did nothing to change that. TMI-2's operating license was not simply unsuspended by the Venting Order. Instead, in the words of the NRC, (i)n the present order we give the approval contemplated by (the February 11) restriction insofar as necessary for the licensee to conduct a purging of the TMI-2 containment. Id. at 29,456-57. Nowhere does the Venting Order support respondents' characterization of it as a reinstatement of some preexisting authority. Rather, the Venting Order appears as an amendment to the February 11 amendment to TMI-2's operating license. Because the June 12 Venting Order modified the February 11 order, and granted the licensee authority to do something that it otherwise could not have done under the existing license authority, the Venting Order was a license amendment within the scope of section 189(a). 51 Our reading of the Venting Order is also supported by Congress' intent in enacting section 189(a). By requiring a hearing upon request whenever a license is grant(ed), suspend(ed), revok(ed), or amend(ed), Congress apparently contemplated that interested parties would be able to intervene before any significant change in the operation of a nuclear facility. Whatever the Venting Order is called, it certainly was such a change. 52 As we held in Section III of this opinion, the NRC is required under section 189(a) to hold a hearing on a license amendment whenever interested parties request one. 27 Petitioners did so in this case, see note 25 supra, and the NRC therefore acted unlawfully in refusing to hold a hearing on the Venting Order. 28