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

Heading: NRC Proceedings

Text: In a hearing request filed June 28, 2007, SLOMFP submitted five contentions to the NRC, challenging the Draft SEA's adequacy under NEPA. Those contentions remained unchanged by the NRC's Final SEA, published August 30, 2007. SLOMFP requested admission of late-filed Contention 6 on February 27, 2008. SLOMFP's petition for review concerns only Contentions 1, 2, 3, and late-filed Contention 6. The Commission addressed SLOMFP's initial contentions in CLI-08-01, 67 NRC 1 (2008), by admitting in part Contentions 1(b) and 2 and denying the rest. The NRC admitted Contention 1(b) (Failure to references sources of scientific data), insofar as it alleged that Staff failed to provide sources and identify appropriate FOIA exemptions, and ordered staff to prepare a document list and index of FOIA exemptions. The NRC permitted SLOMFP to dispute FOIA claims based on the index and public record, but, citing Weinberger, denied it access to exempt materials. The Commission also admitted Contention 2 (Reliance on hidden and unjustified assumptions) to the extent it raised concerns that the SEA ignored environmental effects on surrounding land and nonfatal health effects (e.g. latent cancers). The NRC otherwise denied all contentions. As to the issues raised in this appeal, the NRC denied the following, in whole or in part: Contention 1(a) (Failure to define terms or explain methodology) because SLOMFP did not show that the SEA was insufficient under NEPA and did not otherwise establish an admissible issue; Contention 2 (Reliance on hidden and unjustified assumptions) to the extent it reiterated Contention 1(b) or alleged a lack of clarity about the mitigating role of emergency planning; Contention 3 (Failure to consider credible threat scenarios with significant environmental impacts) because adjudication of various hypothetical terrorist attacks against Diablo Canyon ISFSI is impracticable and would require substantial disclosure of classified and safeguards information. In CLI-08-5, 67 N.R.C. 174, 2008 WL 836361 (2008), the NRC responded to admitted Contention 1(b) by directing a presiding officer to review the Staff's FOIA exemptions and the completeness of its reference list. The Commission also rejected SLOMFP's implicit petition for reconsideration of its prior refusal (in CLI-08-1) to grant access to FOIA-exempt NEPA documents. In CLI-08-08, 67 N.R.C. 193, 2008 WL 1915325 (2008), the Commission declined to admit late-filed Contention 6 (Inappropriate reliance on the `Ease' indicator to exclude reasonably foreseeable and significant environmental impacts). [2] The NRC reasoned that Contention 6 was fundamentally similar to Contention 3, which it had previously rejected, and that even if it satisfied the late-filing criteria, the Commission could not litigate the issue without substantial disclosure of sensitive information. The NRC again declined to reconsider its refusal to hold a closed hearing. Finally, in CLI-08-26, 68 N.R.C. 509, 2008 WL 4683677, following adjudicatory proceedings, the Commission rejected Contention 2 on the merits and concluded that its SEA satisfied NEPA. The NRC explained that SLOMFP offered little evidence concerning effects on surrounding land or non-fatal health effects. Instead, petitioner had attempted to relitigate previously-excluded contentions about the NRC's selection of attack scenarios. The Commission also reiterated its reasons for not disclosing sensitive government security information. Neither NEPA nor the Commission's regulations require such disclosure, the NRC explained, and it would not assist the [NRC] in determining whether the agency's environmental review was reasonable under NEPA. [A]ny benefit to be gained in this case from further disclosure is outweighed by the risks inherent in disseminating security-related information, even under protective order. SLOMFP timely petitioned for review, and we have jurisdiction over the NRC's final orders under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. § 702; the AEA, 42 U.S.C. § 2239(b); and the Hobbs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2342(4).