Opinion ID: 622359
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Environmental Claims

Text: A court generally must be at its most deferential when reviewing scientific judgments and technical analyses within the agency's expertise. Northern Plains Resource Council, Inc. v. Surface Transp. Bd., 668 F.3d 1067, 1075 (9th Cir.2011) (quoting Balt. Gas & Elec. Co. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 462 U.S. 87, 103, 103 S.Ct. 2246, 76 L.Ed.2d 437 (1983)). We may not impose ourselves as a panel of scientists that instructs the [agency] ..., chooses among scientific studies ..., and orders the agency to explain every possible scientific uncertainty. Lands Council, 537 F.3d at 988. And [w]hen specialists express conflicting views, an agency must have discretion to rely on the reasonable opinions of its own qualified experts even if, as an original matter, a court might find contrary views more persuasive. Id. at 1000 (quoting Marsh v. Or. Natural Res. Council, 490 U.S. 360, 378, 109 S.Ct. 1851, 104 L.Ed.2d 377 (1989)) (emphasis added). At a minimum, an agency must support its conclusions with studies that the agency deems reliable. Lands Council, 537 F.3d at 994. An agency will have acted arbitrarily and capriciously only when the record plainly demonstrates that [the agency] made a clear error in judgment in concluding that a project meets the requirements of NEPA. Id.
In Tri-Valley Cares I, we affirmed the original EA on all grounds, except for its failure to consider the impact of a possible terrorist attack. On that ground alone, we remanded for the DOE to consider whether the threat of terrorist activity necessitates the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement, by conducting a comprehensive analysis of the human health, safety, and environmental risks associated with a terrorist attack at LLNL's BSL-3 facility. Tri-Valley Cares I, 203 Fed.Appx. at 107 (citing San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n, 449 F.3d 1016 (9th Cir.2006) ( Mothers for Peace I )). Following that decision, in Mothers for Peace II, we upheld the NRC's finding of no significant impact in a revised EA in which the NRC first analyzed site the site-specific low risk factors, and then bounded the maximum impact of an attack using an MCE model. See San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. NRC, 635 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir.2011) ( Mothers for Peace II ) (applying 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A)). An agency has the discretion to determine the physical scope used for measuring environmental impacts so long as the scope of analysis is reasonable. Idaho Sporting Cong. v. Rittenhouse, 305 F.3d 957, 973 (9th Cir.2002). If the proposed action does not significantly alter the status quo, it does not have a significant impact under NEPA. Burbank Anti-Noise Group v. Goldschmidt, 623 F.2d 115, 116 (9th Cir.1980). At bottom, an agency need only provide a convincing statement of why the threat did not require an EIS to satisfy NEPA. See Ocean Advocates v. U.S. Army Corps. of Eng'rs, 402 F.3d 846, 864 (9th Cir.2005) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). An agency is not required to consider every scenario, and further, nothing in NEPA requires it to rely on purely empirical data. Id.
The DOE utilized its MCE scenario, developed in the original EA, to evaluate the outer bounds of a pathogen release. In Tri-Valley Cares I, we previously upheld the use of this centrifuge model for a bounding analysis of the impacts of abnormal catastrophic events, including earthquakes and accidental plane crashes. There, the model was applied not to measure the cause of the triggering event, but rather the outer limits of its impact. In selecting the centrifuge model to measure the potential impact of a direct terrorist attack on the LLNL BSL-3 facility, the DOE specifically reasoned that the catastrophic release model was analogous to the direct attack scenario because the triggering incidents (earthquake or accidental plane crash in the former, intentional plane crash or suicide bombing in the latter) would result in similar structural damage to the LLNL BSL-3 facility. Moreover, the DOE further refined its analysis of a terrorist attack using the centrifuge model by highlighting several key distinctions from the Army's original model that would significantly alter the consequences of such an event at the LLNL facilityspecifically: (1) the very limited quantities of biological agents generally in use; (2) the likely destruction of pathogens resulting from the fire caused by an airplane crash or explosive device; and (3) the likely destruction of pathogens resulting from general environmental exposure. Because the Army's catastrophic release scenario measured the effects of a catastrophic event at LLNL BSL-3, it was reasonable that the model be applied to consider the outer bounds of a threat of terrorist attack. We read Mothers for Peace II as supporting the proposition that use of an MCE model, such as the catastrophic release scenario applied here, is an acceptable method to simulate the bounds of a direct terrorist attack when the agency decision to use that model is reasonably supported by agency evidence. See Mothers for Peace II, 635 F.3d at 1113 (affirming assessment of a terrorist threat where agency projected pathogen release using maximum credible event). [3] Here, as in Mothers for Peace II, the DOE applied a general MCE analysis to measure the outer limits of the impact of a direct terrorist attack. The MCE centrifuge model used in the original EA was an outer bounding model for a hypothetical maximum credible event it was not designed to be unique to only one particular incident, or even type of incident. We find the DOE's use of the MCE centrifuge model sufficient under NEPA and Mothers for Peace II because the DOE reasonably justified its selection based upon record evidence and additional analysis of site-specific factors. Whether we agree that a centrifuge model was the best way to assess the threat of direct terrorist attack is not the inquiry before us. Lands Council, 537 F.3d at 988 ([w]hen specialists express conflicting views, an agency must have discretion to rely on the reasonable opinions of its own qualified experts even if, as an original matter, a court might find contrary views more persuasive.) (internal citations omitted). Under NEPA, we must refrain from acting as a type of omnipotent scientist, and instead must restrict ourselves to inquiring only whether an agency took a hard look at the potential environmental impacts at issue. Muckleshoot Indian Tribe v. U.S. Forest Serv., 177 F.3d 800, 814 (9th Cir.1999) (per curiam) (quoting Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 350, 109 S.Ct. 1835, 104 L.Ed.2d 351 (1989)). When reasonable scientists disagree on appropriate models for analysis, we must defer to agency experts. Lands Council, 537 F.3d at 988. Here, the DOE provided ample justification and evidence for why it used the centrifuge model to assess the impact of a terrorist attack: it analogized triggering events, compared critical distinctions, and considered uniquely different circumstances. Accordingly, because of the deference that must be afforded to the agency, we find that the DOE took the requisite hard look at the threat of direct terrorist attack.
In assessing the impact of a terrorist threat by the theft and release by a LLNL BSL-3 terrorist outsider, the DOE used a comparative nationwide analysis to determine that the LLNL BSL-3 facility would not be an attractive terrorist target. Specifically, the DOE explained that the LLNL BSL-3 would not alter the status quo basis because there are hundreds of other BSL-3 facilities in the United States that regularly handle and store the same substances, and moreover, that such substances are also available to potential terrorists from common environmental sources. Tri-Valley CAREs contends that the DOE's analysis is deficient because, pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27(a), the DOE must assess the risk of terrorist theft and release in the context of the Livermore locale. We disagree. Although 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27(a) suggests that site-specific actions are generally evaluated in the context of a project locale, nothing in the regulation prohibits the DOE from exercising its discretion to apply a nationwide analysis when appropriate. See Nat'l Parks & Cons. Ass'n v. Babbitt, 241 F.3d 722, 731 (9th Cir.2001). The identification of the geographic area within which a project's impacts on the environmental resources may occur is a task assigned to the special competency of the appropriate agencies. Kleppe v. Sierra Club, 427 U.S. 390, 414, 96 S.Ct. 2718, 49 L.Ed.2d 576 (1976). We find that the DOE's determination of the potential impact of a terrorist theft and release of a pathogen on a national level satisfies NEPA because the record does not show any meaningful difference between the materials present at the LLNL BSL-3 facility and those present at other BSL-3 facilities nationwide. Nowhere in the record is there any proof that the LLNL BSL-3 facility is more prone or attractive to terrorist theft and release of a pathogen by an outsider than any other BSL-3 facility. To the contrary, the record reveals that LLNL is actually one of the most heavily guarded federal facilities, in contrast to hundreds of relatively unguarded BSL-3 facilities nationwide. Given that there are more than 1,300 other BSL-3 facilities nationwide, many of which lack the safeguards of LLNL's BSL-3 facility, and further, given that many of the BSL-3 pathogens also exist in the natural environment, DOE reasonably concluded that the construction of a BSL-3 facility at LLNL did not change the status quo, and therefore found no significant impact. See Burbank Anti-Noise Group v. Goldschmidt, 623 F.2d 115, 116 (9th Cir.1980) (holding that where a proposed project does not alter the status quo then it does not have a significant impact). Accordingly, we find that the DOE reasonably exercised its discretion in determining no significant impact from the threat of theft and release by a LLNL BSL-3 terrorist outsider.
Lastly, the DOE's discussion of the impact of the potential theft and release of a pathogen by a LLNL BSL-3 terrorist insider also satisfies NEPA. Although the DOE did not use an empirical model, it engaged in a thorough two-step probabilistic analysis that assessed: (1) the probability that an insider with access to BSL-3 pathogens would have the motive to commit such an attack; and (2) the public threat that would result, assuming that an insider did have the access and motive to release a pathogen. Tri-Valley CAREs' claim that the DOE violated NEPA because it did not employ empirical analysis fails. Empirical analysis is not required under NEPA; an agency must only provide a convincing statement of why the threat did not require an EIS. See Ocean Advocates v. U.S. Army Corps. of Eng'rs, 402 F.3d 846, 864 (9th Cir.2005). The DOE laid out its dual-tiered probabilistic analysis, discretely defined the scope of its inquiry, and thoughtfully examined the likelihood of an insider stealing and releasing pathogens from LLNL. Based upon the facts that (1) a very small number of people have access to the select agents at LLNL BSL-3, all of whom are subject to extensive screening procedures from multiple agencies; and (2) the form and quantities of the pathogens at LLNL BSL-3 would require significant additional efforts to bring about a terrorist attack, the DOE concluded that the threat of a theft and release by an insider was not significant. The DOE's methodical inquiry satisfies NEPA's requirement that it provide a convincing statement as to why the threat did not require an EIS. Accordingly, we find that the DOE reasonably concluded, based upon its discretion and a thorough examination of the evidence in the record, that threat of terrorist attack by a theft and release from a LLNL BSL-3 terrorist insider was not significant.
The purpose of an EA under NEPA is not to amass and disclose all possible details regarding a proposal, but to create a concise public document that serves to [b]riefly provide sufficient evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare an environmental impact statement or a finding of no significant impact. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.9; League of Wilderness Defenders Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project v. Allen, 615 F.3d 1122, 1136 (9th Cir.2010) (NEPA review must concentrate on the issues that are truly significant to the action ..., rather than amassing needless detail.) (quoting 40 C.F.R. § 1500.1(b)). An EA must provide the public with sufficient environmental information, considered in the totality of the circumstances, to permit members of the public to weigh in with their views and thus inform the agency decision-making process. Bering Strait Citizens v. U.S. Army Corps. of Eng'rs, 524 F.3d 938, 953 (9th Cir.2008).
Tri-Valley CAREs maintains that the DOE did not satisfy the standard set forth in Mothers for Peace I, which held that NEPA serves two fundamental purposes: (1) to require agency consideration of detailed information concerning significant environmental impacts; and (2) to ensure that the public can both access and contribute to that body of information via comments. Mothers for Peace I, 449 F.3d at 1034 (citing Dep't of Trans. v. Public Citizen, 541 U.S. 752, 768, 124 S.Ct. 2204, 159 L.Ed.2d 60 (2004) (emphasis added)). Specifically, Tri-Valley CAREs claims that the DOE violated NEPA by failing to fully disclose a 2005 anthrax shipping incident, therefore depriving the public of the ability to comment. The 2005 incident involved a professor at Louisiana State University who owned a collection of anthrax samples used at LLNL and contracted with a former LLNL employee to return to LLNL to package and ship the collection to two private labs. The former employee returned to LLNL on August 25, 2005, and packaged and shipped 1,065 samples from the collection to one of the labs, without incident. On September 13, 2005, the former employee returned to the facility to ship 3,108 samples to the other lab. The shipment arrived intact but the second lab noted discrepancies between the shipment received and the inventory. Finally, on September 14, 2005, the former employee sent a second shipment of 1,025 samples to the first lab. In unpacking the vials, employees at the first lab discovered improperly sealed vials, and were exposed to anthrax that had leaked into the interior packaging. The first lab concluded, however, that nothing was detected on the outside of the shipping container and therefore [the leak] was `not a public health issue.' As a result of the incident, the CDC suspended all transfers of select agents from LLNL, and LLNL voluntarily suspended all work with select agents pending an investigation. It also established an Incident Analysis Committee. In December 2005, the Incident Analysis Committee completed a comprehensive report identifying areas in need of correction and tracing many of the causes of the incident to the unique role of the former employee. In response, LLNL implemented numerous corrective actions, including expanding the Select Agent Security Plan. In February 2006, DOT examined LLNL's select agent program, concluded that the new procedures were sufficient and that the 2005 incident resulted from an unusual event. On April 18, 2006, the DOE authorized the resumption of select agent work at LLNL. In the original EA, the DOE reasoned that the addition of milliliter-quantity samples from LLNL to the hundreds of tons of infectious material already shipped daily would not have a significant impact on the risk of transportation accidents. In the DREA, the DOE added a brief discussion of the 2005 shipping incident, without identifying the select agent involved, but found that a more detailed discussion was not warranted when considered against the decades-long history of safe shipments of hundreds of tons of infectious materials. Following public comment to the disclosure of this incident in the DREA, including comments from Tri-Valley CAREs itself, the DOE revised the FREA to include an even more detailed discussion of the 2005 anthrax shipping incident in the hope of providing the public with a better understand[ing of] why the incident did not add significant information and did not challenge the conclusions of the document. Tri-Valley CAREs' arguments are unpersuasive because in the original EA, the DREA, and the FREA, the DOE specifically and carefully considered the risks of shipping infectious materials to and from the BSL-3 lab and disclosed these risks to the public. In the original EA, the DOE analyzed and found that the risk of fatality from hazardous waste transportation incidents was less than .11 per million shipments, and the specific risk from infectious substance incidents was too low to even be quantified. Tri-Valley CAREs cannot escape the logical inconsistency of its position. How could the DOE's disclosure of the 2005 shipping incident be so deficient as to deprive the public of the ability to respond, when Tri-Valley CAREs itself relied upon that very document to specifically and publicly comment on the 2005 shipping incident? The purpose of an EA is not to compile an exhaustive examination of each and every tangential event that potentially could impact the local environment. Such a task is impossible, and never-ending. The purpose of the EA is simply to create a workable public document that briefly provides evidence and analysis for an agency's finding regarding an environmental impact. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.9; League of Wilderness Defenders Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project v. Allen, 615 F.3d 1122, 1136 (9th Cir.2010) (emphasizing the parsimonious nature of an effective EA) (quoting 40 C.F.R. § 1500.1(b)). The DOE has more than met its burden here. Accordingly, we find that the DOE's discussion of the 2005 anthrax shipping incident in the DREA and the FREA satisfies NEPA.
We do not reach the issue of whether the DOE's decision not to include information about restricted experiments in the FREA was arbitrary or capricious because the district court properly found that this argument was waived. Here, Tri-Valley CAREs did not address the district court's ruling that the argument was deemed waived in its opening appellate brief. Thus, the issue is not properly before us. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir.1999) (holding that arguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are deemed waived). Claims not made in an opening brief in a sufficient manner to put the opposing party on notice are deemed waived. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema, N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512, 122 S.Ct. 992, 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002) (holding that claims must put parties on sufficient notice of underlying arguments, or arguments are deemed waived).
NEPA requires supplementation of any NEPA analysis in response to significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts. 40 C.F.R. § 1502.9(c)(1)(ii). Supplementation is not required every time new information comes to light after the EIS is finalized. To require otherwise would render agency decisionmaking intractable, always awaiting updated information. Marsh v. Oregon Natural Res. Council, 490 U.S. 360, 373-74, 109 S.Ct. 1851, 104 L.Ed.2d 377 (1989). Whether new information requires supplemental analysis is a classic example of a factual dispute the resolution of which implicates substantial agency expertise. Id. at 376, 109 S.Ct. 1851. Tri-Valley CAREs contends that the DOE violated the NEPA supplementation rule when it failed to supplement the FREA to address the results of its Security Assessment (SA) conducted at LLNL in 2008 by the DOE's Health, Safety and Security Office of Independent Oversight. The SA included a mock attack on the Superblock, where special nuclear materials are stored, and identified several deficiencies in performance of LLNL's protective force. The SA gave LLNL's protective force the lowest possible rating, Significant Weaknesses. Specifically, the SA identified deficiencies in LLNL's physical security systems and protection program management. In July 2008, however, the DOE prepared a supplemental report to determine whether the SA constituted significant new information requiring supplementation of the FREA. There, the DOE examined whether the low rating, and the deficiencies identified therein, significantly altered the outcomes of any of the three terrorist attack scenarios (as previously discussed, (1) intentional airplane crash, (2) intentional theft and release from LLNL outsider, and (3) intentional theft and release from LLNL insider). Because the DOE determined in its supplemental report that the SA did not show a seriously different picture of the likely environmental harms stemming from the proposed project, we must defer to the DOE's finding that a supplemental REA was not required. Wisconsin v. Weinberger, 745 F.2d 412, 416-17 (7th Cir.1984).