Opinion ID: 216911
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: The NRC's Rejection of Citizens' Supervision Petition

Text: As a final matter, Citizens challenge the NRC's denial of the Supervision Petition and claim that the OIG Report demonstrates that the Staff's safety review was inadequate. In essence, Citizens claim that the NRC should have suspended the relicensing proceedings and conducted a comprehensive overhaul of the Staffs review process. In addition, Citizens sought to reopen the record to include the OIG Report. The NRC denied both of Citizens' requests. First, it noted that Citizens may not challenge the adequacy of the Staffs review. Rather, they may only proffer admissible contentions alleging that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant/licensee on a material issue of law or fact. 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(vi) (emphasis added). Thus, the NRC concluded that Citizens' argument challenging the NRC's supervision of its Staff was beyond the scope of the relicensing proceedings. In any event, the NRC addressed Citizens' arguments and ultimately determined that the OIG Report did not establish a need for a complete overhaul of the license renewal process. The NRC noted that, although the OIG Report identified certain weaknesses, the Staff agreed to implement the OIG Report's suggestions. More importantly, however, the OIG Report did not characterize any of the findings as posing a safety risk. Finally, the NRC denied Citizens' motion to reopen the administrative record to include the OIG report. In doing so, it concluded that Citizens failed to provide supporting affidavits and offered only the speculation that the Staff may have failed to identify such a [significant safety issue] because their review may have been insufficiently thorough. 68 N.R.C. at 468. The NRC's refusal to grant the Supervision Petition was well-founded. At the outset, the NRC's conclusion that the focus of the license proceeding must be the sufficiency of the application, not the adequacy of the Staff's review, is proper in light of the regulations, see 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(vi), and we will not second-guess the NRC's reasonable construction thereof. See Beazer East, 963 F.2d at 606. Even more dubious is our authority to review the NRC's supervision of its own Staff, in light of the AEA's grant of authority to the NRC to achieve its statutory purpose. See 5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(2) (judicial review is not appropriate where agency action is committed to agency discretion by law). Thus, we decline to review the NRC's decision not to overhaul the licensing proceedings. As to the motion to reopen the record, the NRC's conclusion was amply supported. The regulations require a petitioner to supply affidavits in support of such a motion, see 10 C.F.R. § 2.326(b), and Citizens failed to do so. Moreover, the NRC reasonably concluded that the OIG Report did not present a significant safety issue. In doing so, the NRC explained that the OIG Report did not conclude that the Staff generally neglected to conduct necessary reviews, audits, and inspections. 68 N.R.C. at 474. Although the OIG Report noted some deficiencies in the Staff's report writing, the NRC expressed confidence in the substance of the Staff's decisions by noting we remain convinced that the agency's current licensing renewal approach and process are sensible and lawful. Id. at 481. The NRC's conclusion that the motion to reopen was deficient under 10 C.F.R. § 2.326(a)(2) derives from adequate record support and we will uphold it.