Opinion ID: 216911
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: The NRC's Denial of Citizens' Motion to Reopen the Administrative Record to Admit the Metal Fatigue Contention

Text: Citizens insist that the NRC denied them their right to a hearing under the AEA in applying the standards for reopening the administrative record to their proffered Metal Fatigue Contention when the contention had not been previously litigated. Alternatively, Citizens maintain that their motion satisfied the reopening requirements. The regulations dictate that: A motion to reopen a closed record to consider additional evidence will not be granted unless the following criteria are satisfied: (1) The motion must be timely. However, an exceptionally grave issue may be considered in the discretion of the presiding officer even if untimely presented; (2) The motion must address a significant safety or environmental issue; and (3) The motion must demonstrate that a materially different result would be or would have been likely had the newly proffered evidence been considered initially. 10 C.F.R. § 2.326(a)(1)-(3). Reopening the administrative record in an NRC proceeding is an extraordinary action. 51 Fed.Reg. 19,535, 19,538 (May 30, 1986). The proponent must meet a very heavy burden and present[ ] material, probative evidence which either could not have been discovered before or could have been discovered but is so grave that, in the judgment of the presiding officer, it must be considered anyway. Id. Citizens argue that the NRC may not apply the standards for reopening the administrative record to a contention that raises a new issue, as opposed to new evidence about an issue that already has been heard. To support this proposition, Citizens rely on Union of Concerned Scientists v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n, 735 F.2d 1437 (D.C.Cir.1984) ( UCS I ). In that case, the NRC categorically barred contentions seeking to challenge the results of emergency preparedness testing and forced the intervenors to add the contention through a motion to reopen. See id. at 1443. The D.C. Circuit ruled that the NRC violated the AEA by applying the motion to reopen standard when it should have applied the default contention admissibility requirements. See id. Citizens' reliance on UCS I is misplaced. The NRC did not categorically bar the Metal Fatigue Contention. Rather, it applied the motion to reopen standard because the administrative record was closed by the time the contention was raised. Citizens also rely on Deukmejian v. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n, 751 F.2d 1287 (D.C.Cir.1984) (vacated on other grounds). In Deukmejian, two licensing proceedings were at issue, and the petitioners challenged deficiencies in the low-power plant proceeding while simultaneously seeking to reopen the administrative record in the full-power plant proceeding on the same ground. See id. at 1311. The NRC applied the motion to reopen standard to both challenges. See id. at 1312. The D.C. Circuit ruled that automatically funneling the contention challenging the low-power plant proceeding into the motion to reopen process was impermissible because each contention should have been evaluated on its own. The NRC's refusal to distinguish between the contentions violated the AEA because the criteria for reopening a closed record are higher than the criteria for obtaining a hearing and the mere fact that a party can seek reopening is not a sufficient substitute for the hearing. Id. (emphasis in original). Citizens' emphasis on Deukmejian is also misplaced. In that case, the NRC violated the AEA because it incorrectly characterized a contention challenging the low-power plant proceeding as a motion to reopen the full-power plant proceeding. In the case at hand, there was one proceeding and the NRC permitted Citizens to raise contentions. After the record was closed, only then did it apply the motion to reopen standard to the Metal Fatigue Contention. Significantly, after Deukmejian, the NRC promulgated its standards for reopening the record. Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.326(d), [a] motion to reopen which relates to a contention not previously in controversy among the parties must also satisfy the requirements for nontimely contentions in § 2.309(c). (emphasis added). Thus, the regulations explicitly allow for contentions alleging previously non-litigated issues to be raised through a motion to reopen. To accept Citizens' argument that the motion to reopen standard may never be applied in situations where a petitioner seeks to add previously unlitigated material would effectively render the regulation meaningless. We have upheld the motion to reopen standard and deferred to the NRC's application of its rules, so long as it is reasonable. See In re Three Mile Island Alert, 771 F.2d at 732. There is no basis to question the NRC's application of its regulations here. Having determined that the NRC properly applied the motion to reopen standard, we evaluate whether the NRC abused its discretion in concluding that Citizens failed to meet the standard. Citizens first argue that the Board impermissibly adjudicated the merits of its challenge to the Green's function analysis. Second, Citizens claim that the NRC should not have relied on an affidavit from the Staff concluding that the use of the Green's function method did not present a safety issue. Third, Citizens assert that the NRC should not have disregarded the statement from the NRC spokesperson. The Board ruled that the motion did not raise a significant safety issue. The Board pointed out that Citizens' expert, Dr. Hopenfeld, opined that I expect that the simplified method has under-estimated the [cumulative usage function] of the recirculation nozzle at Oyster Creek. 68 N.R.C. at 17 (internal quotation marks omitted). The conjecture, the Board found, was pure speculation and devoid of evidentiary support raising a significant safety issue. Recognizing that the Staff concluded that the Green's function analysis could result in a non-conservative calculation if incorrectly applied, the Board determined that the Staff has taken what appear to be prudent steps to confirm that AmerGen has conducted an adequate time limited aging analysis and this potential defect in the analysis does not itself establish the existence of a deficiency in the license renewal application that warrants reopening the record. Id. at 18. Further, the Board rejected Citizens' argument that because cumulative usage function measurements at the Vermont Yankee Facility were flawed, the measurements at Oyster Creek were likely to be deficient as well. The Board maintained that Citizens provide no factual evidence or expert testimony showing that the analysis used at Oyster Creek employing the Green's function was improperly performed. Id. Further, the Board noted that Citizens' reliance on the NRC spokesperson's statement was misplaced because the comments simply acknowledged that breakage of certain components in a nuclear facility could have severe consequences. Id. at 19. It did not demonstrate that the Green's function analysis itself was linked to a significant safety issue. Moreover, the Board concluded that Citizens could not demonstrate that reopening the record as to the Metal Fatigue Contention would lead to a materially different result, given that Exelon confirmed that the calculations were correct. In reviewing the Board's decision, the NRC agreed that Citizens had provided only speculation that the use of the Green's function analysis was non-conservative. The NRC did not abuse its discretion in refusing to reopen the administrative record. First, Citizens' argument that the Board and the NRC impermissibly weighed the evidence lacks merit. The reopening rule requires Citizens to proffer evidence demonstrating safety significance and that prior admission of the evidence would have led to a materially different result. 10 C.F.R. § 2.326(a)(1)-(3). The decisions of the Board and the NRC reveal that both bodies applied this regulation to Citizens' proffered contention and determined that it did not warrant reopening. The NRC's construction of the regulations in this regard is entitled to deference. See Beazer East, 963 F.2d at 606. Second, the NRC reasonably concluded that the Metal Fatigue Contention did not present a significant safety issue that would have led to a materially different result. Citizens did not demonstrate that the original metal fatigue calculations based on the Green's function analysis were deficient. The NRC provided a sound basis for its decision when it concluded that Citizens provided no evidence to support [their] argument that AmerGen's calculations were based on non-conservative assumptions or methodologies, or to support its premise that a change to a more conservative analytical methodology would push the cumulative usage factor over 1.0. 68 N.R.C. at 671. Thus, Citizens did not meet their burden under 10 C.F.R. § 2.326(a) to demonstrate a significant safety issue and that a materially different result would have been likely. There is substantial record support for this reasoning and we will not disturb it. See Limerick Ecology, 869 F.2d at 744. Next, we determine that the NRC did not err in relying on the Staff's affidavit asserting that no significant safety issue was presented. We have held that [i]f the Commission has ... information bearing on the subject matter of a motion to reopen ... it should be free to use that information. Three Mile Island Alert, 771 F.2d at 732. In addition, the NRC correctly discounted the statements of the NRC spokesperson because these comments did not address the Green's function analysis, but rather generally discussed the consequences of a break in the recirculation nozzle. Overall, Citizens failed to meet the exacting standard to justify reopening the administrative record. See Deukmejian, 751 F.2d at 1317-18 (Where as here the agency has taken final action on a matter that is peculiarly within its realm of expertise, we will not require the agency to reopen its proceedings except upon a clear showing of abuse of discretion or of extraordinary circumstances. (internal quotations and brackets omitted)). Our review of the record reveals that the NRC analyzed the relevant issues relying on information from reliable sources, reasoned to a logical conclusion, and articulated the reasons for its decision. As a reviewing court, we can ask nothing more of the [NRC]. Three Mile Island Alert, 771 F.2d at 735.