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

Heading: NRC's Discretionary Judgment

Text: Throughout the proceedings below, the NRC maintained that: (1) information the Commission must consider in its NEPA decisionmaking may be withheld from public disclosure under FOIA exemptions, under Weinberger [4] ; (2) the NRC has a statutory obligation under the AEA to protect national security information; (3) meaningful hearings on the range of conceivable terrorist scenarios could not be conducted without substantial disclosure of classified and safeguards information on threat assessments and security arrangements; and (4) any benefit to be gained in this case from further disclosure is outweighed by the risks inherent in disseminating security-related information, even under a protective order. See CLI-07-11 at 149-151; CLI-08-1 at 2, 5, 9, 15-17, 20-21; CLI-08-5 at 174-177; CLI-08-8 at 193, 196-97, 201-202; CLI-08-26 at 16-23. The NRC's orders reasonably interpret NEPA, the AEA, and its own regulations. As outlined above, neither NEPA nor the AEA requires a closed hearing. Furthermore, by regulation, the Commission will not grant access to restricted data or national security information unless it determines that the granting of access will not be inimical to the common defense and security. 10 C.F.R. § 2.905(h). While the orders we review did not expressly reference this regulation, the NRC referred to its statutory duty to protect national security information and concluded that hearings could not be conducted without disclosure of threat assessments and security arrangements, and that the risks of permitting protected access to FOIA-exempt information outweighed the benefits. See, e.g., CLI-08-1 at 2, 20-21. We will uphold a decision of less than ideal clarity if, as here, the agency's path may reasonably be discerned. Pub. Citizen, 573 F.3d at 923 (quotations omitted). [5] It may be that the Commission has procedures for holding the closed hearings SLOMFP seeks, see CLI-08-1 at 21, and that petitioner's attorney and expert have the appropriate security clearances. But where no statute or regulatory provision requires such a hearing, the Commission retains discretion over how to balance its duties under NEPA and the AEA. SLOMFP does not contest the NRC's FOIA exemption claims or charge the NRC with violating its own regulations. Under these circumstances, the NRC reasonably determined that holding closed hearings in this and other NEPA/terrorism matters presents substantial risks without an offsetting benefit to its NEPA decisionmaking process. We are mindful of the Supreme Court's admonition against imposing additional procedures on agencies' NEPA decisionmaking. See Vermont Yankee, 435 U.S. at 548-49, 98 S.Ct. 1197. Instead, we must determine whether the agency complied with the procedures mandated by the relevant statutes. Id. at 549 n. 21, 98 S.Ct. 1197. The NRC has done so here, and its decision not to provide a closed hearing was not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law. 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).