Opinion ID: 204775
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Contention 3 (Zirconium Fire)

Text: In challenging NRC's refusal to admit Contention 3, SLOMFP makes two unsuccessful argumentsthat the NRC (1) made an unlawful threshold determination that any attack on the Diablo Canyon ISFSI is remote and speculative, and (2) improperly failed to address Contention 3 evidence about the possibility of a catastrophic zirconium fire. SLOMFP's claim that the NRC made an unlawful threshold determination misstates the record. Petitioner urges us to read the Commission's initial order as announcing that any attacks on Diablo Canyon are remote and speculative. But in the language SLOMFP quotes, the Commission merely reiterated its position outside of this proceeding (i.e. in other circuits) that NEPA does not require analysis of terrorist threats. See, e.g., CLI-07-11 at 149 n. 5; see, e.g., N.J. Dept. of Envtl. Prot. v. NRC, 561 F.3d 132 (3d Cir.2009). As for the NRC's statements about the impracticab[ility] of adjudicating alternate terrorist scenarios, they indeed resemble the Commission's arguments in Mothers for Peace. This time, though, the NRC performed an analysis in which it made factual determinations as to plausible attack scenarios and their consequences. We also disagree with SLOMFP's suggestion that the NRC had no reasoned basis for rejecting petitioner's attack scenario and otherwise failed to address it in the proceedings. In petitioner's scenario, an attacker ignites a fire in a spent fuel canister, causing the fuel and its cladding to burn as well as the release of radioactive material, resulting in widespread environmental contamination. SLOMFP inferred that the NRC failed to consider this credible scenario because the SEA's dose estimates were so small. The Commission rejected Contention 3 because it was impracticable to adjudicate the range of alternate scenarios and because hearings would require substantial disclosure of classified and safeguards information. CLI-08-1 at 20. While we question the NRC's impracticability argument, given its procedures for winnowing admitted contentions, its decision not to litigate Contention 3 on Weinberger grounds was reasonable. That decision did not absolve the Commission of its duty to consider SLOMFP's evidence, as we have emphasized, but the record shows that the agency did so. Despite its conclusion that the scenarios could not be discussed in a public hearing, the NRC Staff was familiar with the zirconium fire scenarios and assured the Commission that they did not alter the FONSI finding. Accordingly, the Commission did not abuse its discretion in resolving Contention 3.