ML20134M062
| ML20134M062 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/13/1997 |
| From: | Cordes J NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| SECY-97-040, SECY-97-040-R, SECY-97-40, SECY-97-40-R, NUDOCS 9702200078 | |
| Download: ML20134M062 (9) | |
Text
_ _ _ _
t s
,fm RELEASED TO THE PDR i
J M w R u E.
i dato o
.............. >. initials ADJUDICATORY ISSUE (Information)
February 13, 1997 SECY-97-04b F_or:
The Commission o
From:
John F. Cordes, Jr.
Solicitor
Subject:
LITIGATION REPORT - 1997 - 1 Ravthlatt v. NRE, No. 95-1578 (D.C. Cir., decided Feb. 7,1997)
Petitioners, Dr. Zinovy V. Reytblatt and the Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy (OCRE),
brought this lawsuit to challenge 1995 changes in 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix J. The revised App,endix J established a new performance-based option for containment leakage rate testing. The new rule provides for the retention of much leakage-rate test data at reactor sites. In the rulemaking, the NRC rejected a charge by Dr. Reytblatt that it had designed the rule to " conceal" information. The rule's statement of considerations pointed out that the most safety-sensitive information still must be submitted to the agency (and hence made public) and that on-site NRC inspections would ensure the integrity of the data.
Petitioners' lawsuit attacked only the information-reporting aspect of the new rulia, not its merits. In early February, the court of appeals (Bucklay, Wald & Edwards, JJ.) issued a decision upholding the rule.
As a threshold matter, the court ruled that petitioners had " standing" to sue because their suit could lead to a meaningful remedy,i.e., a new rulemaking. The court discounted petitioners' failure to challenge an earlier NRC rule reducing public access to leakage-rate test data for Appendix J's "presecriptive" option. On the merits, however, the court rejected petitioners' case in its entirety. The court found the NRC's brief discussion of the information issue " entirely adequate," in light of the " general" and " abusive" nature of the only public comment the agency received on information-reporting and in light of the rule's
" primary focus" on the new performance-based approach rather than on reporting requirements.
The court also held that the NRC was under no obligation to respond to Dr. Reytblatt's out-of-time comment that a lack of access to leakage-rate test results would prevent effective enforcement petitions under 10 C.F.R. I 2.206. The court stated that petitioners, if they wish, could petition for a fresh rulemaking to increase reporting of leakage rate test results.
[5I'i o
- ?50156 NOTE: TO BE MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE IN 5 7--
N WORKING DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS PAPER 0
w 7 g Q
{ Ll - ) ?C R
wwm
O n
The court also noted that the NRC already was considering a general petition for rulemaking, filed by OCRE, seeking greater public access to licensee-held documents.
i Petitioners have 45 days from February 7 to seek rehearing and 90 days to seek certiorari.
CONTACT:
Grace H. Kim 1
415-3605 h~
f l
John F. Cordes Solicitor DISTRIBUTION:
l
)
f 0
4 1
i i
0
-7
~.. --...
1 o
4 J
4 i
1 a
l 4
)
ATTACHMENT 1.
)
Ravthlatt v. NRC, No. 95-1578 (D.C. Cir., decided Feb. 7,1997)
)
i l
v 1
6 4
1 d
T a
a i
i l
1 9.
h I
i i.
i i
V r * -
m.
y
+-
=
M
. ~ - - -. _. _.
j
-F.3d-Page1 i
(Che as: 19F7 WL 47184 (D.C.Cir.))
s Dr. Zinovy V. REYTBLA'IT and Ohio Citizens Commission's response to be adequate, we deny the l
,For Responsible Energy, Pe*I*Ianers petition for review.
V.
l UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY I. BACKGROUND COMMISSION, and 'Ibe United States of
- America, All nuclear power plants licensed in the United
[
D ampa=h=**
States must have a protective shielding structure, Nuclear Energy Institute, Intervenor commonly called the "contamment," which houses the nuclear reactor and its associated parts. Ifan 1
No. 95-1573.
accident damages the reactor, the cansainment is intended to confine the gaseous radioactive matenal United States Court of Appeals, that would otherwise be released into the Distnct of Columbia Circuit.
environment. The Nuclear Regulatory Comminaion 1
(*NRC" or " Commission") has issued rules l
Argued Sept. 25,1996.
governing the permissible rate of leakage from these containment systems and requinng penodic leakage 4
Decided Feb. 7,1997.
rate tests. "Ihese are contained in Appendix J to the Commission's regulations. See generally 10 C.F.R.
Petition for Review of an Order of the Nuclear pt. 50 App. J (1996).
L Regulatory Commission J
A. Appendix J's Testiag Re4 Kunberley K.
Walley, with whom Eric R.
j Glitzenstein was on the briefs, argued the cause for Prior to September 1995, Appendix J incorporated petitioners.
a "y
drive approach" to the testag of cant =6 ament leakage rates.
Regulations Grace H. Kim, Attorney, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory implementing this yy.
ch spec'ified the types of i
Commission ("NRC" or
" Commission"), with tests that were acceptable, the manner in which they whom Karen D. Cyr, General Counsel, John F.
were to be conducted, their is%._._y, and how they i
Cordes, Jr., Solicitor, and E. Leo Slaggae, Deputy were to be reponed. See 10 C.F.R. at 757-61.
Solicitor, NRC, and Jonathan F. Klein, Attorney, U.S. D y s er.^ of Justice, were on the brief, The amendments to Appendix J adopted in argued the cause for e% Roger K. Davis, September 1995 (*b
" s Rule") gave licensees Semor Attorney, NRC, entered an appearance.
the option of adopting a " performance-based" approact to nansminment leakage rate testag as an i
Daniel F. Stenger, with whom Roben L. Draper, alternative to compliance with the prescriptive Nicholas S. Reynolds, and Robert W. Bishop were requirements. See id. at 756, 761-63; Pnmary i
on the brief, argued the cause for intervenor.
Reactor Conrammen: Leakage Testag for Water-Cooled Power Reactors, 60 Fed. Reg. 49,495, j
Before EDWARDS, Chief Judge, WALD, Circuit 49,495 (1995). Under this -ry.v.ch, the fiquer.;y i
Judge, and BUCKLEY, Senior Circuit Judge.
of leakage rate testing is not specified but is determmed by the results of prior tests. 10 C.F.R.
BUCKLEY, Senior Judge:
at 762.
4 i
i
- 1 Petitioners Dr. Zinovy Reytblatt and Ohio B. Appendix J's Reporting Requirements j
Citizens for Responsible Energy challenge the
{
Nuclear Regulatory Comminaion's final rule
- 1. Reporting Requirements Under the Prescriptive j
==aada
the reporting requirements for Approach j
j performance-based containment leakage rate testing by nuclear power plants. Their primary contention Under the original prescriptive program, licensees j
is that the Commission acted arbitrarily and were required to file a summary report of the results capnciously in failing to respond adequately to Dr.
of all leakage rate tests, regardless of whether the i
j Reytblatt's comments.
Because we ftad the licensee believed that the plant had failed or passed f
Copr. O West 1997 No claim to orig. U.S. govt. works i
k i
1
-)
(~
F.3d -
Page 2
~
j (Cite as: 1997 WL 47184, *1 (D.C.Cir,))
i the test. 10 C.F.R. at 764 (1995). These repons through the NRC.
Id. at 13,615-16.
The were kept in the NRC's Public Document Room, id.
Commation concluded that OCRE's comments on i 9.21(b), and made available to the public pursuant the March Rule raised a ' generic issue [that was]
to the Freedom of Informanon Act (*FOIA*). Id. i better addressed in the context of [the earlier]
9.11.'
petition." Id. at 13,616. It also found that "the loss of information in this particular case [would] not In March 1995, the NRC issued a final rule adversely affect the public interest in access to j
(" March Rt'.e")
that reduced the reporung information regardag adequate protection of the l
requirements under the pr wirive program, public health and safety." Id.
Reduction of Reportmg R r.
6 Imposed on i
NRC1L--**, 60 Fed. Reg. 13,615, 13,615 (1995)
- 2. Reportmg Requirements Under the Performance-i (codified at 10 C F.R. pt. 50 App. J). Although, Based Approach under the new rule, licensees were still obliged to
[
prepare summary reports for all leakage rate test De September Rule provided licensees with results and to make them avadable for the NRC's aperformance-based option whose reportmg l
review and inspection at the respective plant sites, requirements were essentially idenucal to those they were only required to file the reports of failed previously adopted under the March Rule for the tests to the NRC.
Id. at 13,615, 13,617.
p,
.irive approach. Dus, under the EF- _-1-r j
Therefore, only reports for failed tests were Rule, licensees must make successfulperformance-avadable for public i===*iaa-based test results available to the NRC for *-- ;-W at plant sites.
60 Fed. Reg. at 49,505.
If a j
- 2 In the preamble to the March Rule, the NRC cantainment system fails to meet its performance explained that, in determmine whether to eliminate a criteria, however, a report of the test results must be reportmg is p. a.;, it filed with the Camminaian pursuant to the j
'first consider [ed] the public health and safety
- Emergency Notificanon System" provdions of 10 impact of the proposed elimmation [and if] there C.F.R.
66 50.72(bXIXii), 50.72(bX2Xi), and
[was] no direct impact on public health and safety, 50.73(aX2Xii). Id.
[it] also consider [ed] the reduced administrative burden on the licensee and the extent to which the ne performance-based rule was proposed in a proposed elimmanan [would] deprive the public of February 1995 notice in the Federal Register that j
unportant health and safety information.
established a 75-day camment yiod.
Prunary Id. at 13,615. The Comminaion concluded that Reactor f'antamment Ieakage Testing for Water-l limiting the filing requitements to reports of failed Cooled Power Reactors, 60 Fed. Reg. %34, 9634 4
leakage rate tests would reduce the regulatory (proposed Feb. 21,1995). De NRC " assure [d]
l burden on licensees without adversely affectmg the consideration only for comments received on or j
public health and safety. Id. All seven parties before [the May 8,' 1995 deadlina)," and indicated commenting on the proposed rule agreed with this that those received after the dedline would bc conclusion. Id.
considered to the extent " practical.' Id. Although
{
the NRC received numerous comments ou the Dr. Reytblatt did not comment on the March Rule.
technical aspects of the proposed rule, tie only j
Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy (*OCRE*),
timely comment that mentioned the reporting howev.tr, filed a timely objection to the proposed requirements was contamed in a letter dated May 4, i
modifiution of reporting requirements on the 1995, from Dr. Reytblatt, an expert in nuclear ground that it would dimmsah he public's access to reactor containment leakage rate testing who t
information nace===ry for public iriipetum in the frequently commented on NRC proposals involving j
regulatory process. Id. De.NRC responded by that subject. See 60 Fed. Reg. at 49,503.
referring to a previous OCRE petition that sought to establish a public right-to-know provision that would
- 3 in his seventeen-page submission regarding the ensure public access to information held by September Rule, Dr. Reytblatt focused pnmarily on j
licensees That petition addressed the cumulative methodologies for conducting and analyzing leakage effect of various rulemakings that deprived the rate test results. Nevertheless, at five places he j
public of access to informanon previously available expressed a general concern regarding the reporting l
Copr. O West 1997 No claim to orig. U.S. govt. works 2
w
-.,1.
y v
- r.,. -,.,
- -... ~..
I l
-F.3d-Pags3 i
(Cite as: 1997 WL 47184, *3 (D.C.Cir.))
\\
l
{_
requuements under the performance-based opten.
perfect way to secure an instant access to the test The followag excerpts from Addendum 1 to his data.
1 comments describe both the nature of his concern Id. at 40117.
and specific proposals for makmg test information avadable to the public:
On July 7,1995, the NRC sent Dr. Reytblatt a 2
What the Standard [a reference to a guideline copy of its Public Comment Resolution, reprmted in j
)
proposed by an indnetry group, Amencan Nanonal JA at 410-43. In this document, the Commission
]
1 Standards Instimte (" ANSI"), that the Commi== ion ra=aa~bd o 26 letters addressing the proposed rule, t
had not adopted] proposes to submit to NRC is just including Dr. Reytblatt's May 4 submission, in a l
t a cover lener.
secuan entitled " Reporting R%ub
- .," the l
l Secten 5.11 is written with the clear intent to Commia= ion stated:
canceal fmm the public all essennal informanon
- 4 97. Only one comment was received on this about a test.
issue. Dr. Z. Reytblan noted that the proposed l
Section 5.11.2 is vague and unclear and contains rule's reportmg squi
- . consist only of a j
no defined requirements. 'the idea of fair analysis cover letter to the NRC, and suggested this is
]
without any public access is preposterous.
intended to conceal information from the public. It l
The adequate i, L r.; would be to hold a was suggested that a public heanng, in which j
short, announced well ahead of time, seminar utility analysts present the results of their tests to
]
aimilar to a public hearmg where utility analysts the general public, would constitute an adequate and consuhants would have an opportunity to reporting requirement. Moreover, Dr. Reytblatt expose the test to their can... nan and to the suggests that utilities should be required to submit public.
all :- ;---- files related to testag to the NRC j
Secuan 5.12.2 does not require retaimng of immediately after the tests have been completed to computer programs controlling the test.
It is prevent their alteration or destruction.
Dr.
written with a malicious intent to preclude [the]
Reytblatt believes such brief reporting would not j
public fmm accessing the test data and processing seem to be t-es esic, does not add any thereof by filing FOIA requests to NRC. There is additional costs, and will be extremely useful for j
no essennal propnet[alry information involved any public member who is doing *adaaaadaa' j
with this matter contrary to the todustry position, research in the field of leak rate testag to the j
and if there is, then specific petitions may be filed pubhc benefit.
for exemptions.
NRC Paaaaaa -
l I propose that all Sections of the Standard
- 98. It is not the intent of the NRC's reportmg j
concerned with reportmg be replaced with one requirements to conceal informanon from the short requirement that all E--; - - files pertaming pubhc; if tests fail, the information is required to j
to testag be submitted in a real-time mode to the be reponed to the NRC, and the NRC will make 4
i NRC for permanent storage to prevent their such data available to the public. The NRC I
alteranon or destruction This is the cheapest and believes that its on-site inspecuans of Appendix J
)
j technologically perfect way of reporting. It also tests and the requirements to make such data j
puts an end to all attempts to deprive [the] public accessible to the NRC provides adequate assurance l
from information vital to [its] safety.
This of the integrity of the test data.
l proposal is so l operiani that it merits presentation for consideration to the United States Government.
NRC Disposition Addendum 1 to comments on App. J. to 10 C.F.R.
- 99. The NRC has decided, based on consideration Part 50, NUREG-1493 & ANSI /ANS 56.8-94, by of this public comment, to retain its reportmg j
Dr. Zmovy Reyblatt, dated May 4,1995, repnnted requisements as stated in the proposed rule.
in Joint Appendix ("JA") at 398-99.
Id. at 433 39 (irregular margins in original). The l
'Ibe test reporting is reduced to a cover letter to NRC su m.skal paragraphs 98 and 99 of the prevent the American people from ahi=Lalag [ ]
Public Comment Resolution in the preamble to the complete test data through FOIA.
All test September Rule. 60 Fed. Reg. at 49,503.
computer programs, calculations and files must be copied in real-time mode and deposited with the On July 28,1995, two months after the deadline for j
NRC. This is the most inexpensive and technically comments had passed, Dr. Reytblatt wrote a second i
Copr. C West 1997 No claim to orig. U.S. govt. works
- ~ ~ -. -. - - - - - - - -..... -. _ -. -- -
-F.3d--
Page 4 (Che as: 1997 WL 47184, *4 (D.C.Cir.))
i letter to the NRC addressing the Public Comment (2) that the injury is fairly traceable to the Resolution, to which the NRC did not respond.
challenged action, and (3) that it is likely to be OCRE, on the other hand, filed timely comments to redressed by a favorable decision.
Lujan v.
i the RF eber Rule; but these did not deal with the Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61,112 repor*.ing requirements for performance-based S.Ct. 2130,119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992) (internal
]
testing.
quotaten marks and citations omitted).
. In this praca~'ias petitioners do ist challaa.=e Petitioners meet the first of those requirernents j
either the testing requirements of the performance-because the September Rule's restnction on their based option or the testing or isyvidug requirements access to leakage rate testing data makes it more under the prescriptive.yy.vech. They only question difficult for them to determine whether they have a the reportmg requirements under the performance-basis for filing a petition pursuant to 10 C.F.R. !
based option.
2.206(a). Section 2.206 entitles any member of t!n public to " file a request to institute a proceedmg...
i
- 11. DISCUSSION to modify, suspend, or revoke a hcense, or for such i
A. Standag other action as may be proper.' id. In the past, petitioners have filed several section 2.206 petitions As an initial matter, we must address the based on public information regardag scetear plant Commission's challenge to petitioners' standmF.
test results, one of which resulted in the NRC's The Hobbs Act gives this court junsdiction to discovery of discrepancies in a licensee's leakage review final NRC rules dealing with the activities of tests that, in turn, led to a two-month shutdown of bcensees, but provides that only "part[ies) its plant.
aggneved' by such niles may petition a court of i
appeals for review. 28 U.S.C. f 2344 (1994).
The NRC suggests that the causation and Thus, the Hobbs Act requires (1)
- party' status redressability 16
- . have not been met 3
(i.e., that petitioners participated in the praca~ iia-hennae it was the March Rule that eliminate <I the before the agency), Water Transp. Ass'n v. ICC, more stnngent reportag requirements for all leakage S19 F.2d 1189,1192-93 (D.C.Cir.1987), and (2) rate tests. Accordmg to the Commianion, because -
aggrievement (i.e., that they meet the sect.h.
the September Rule added no restrictions on public of consututional and prudential sundmg). Id. at access to test records beyond those then in existence, 1193-94.
vacatur of the September Rule could not give petitioners the relief they seek, i.e., reinstatement of
- 5 Petitioners clearly meet the first condition the more stnngent reportmg requirements that hemi=* cach y rdc.p d in the Commiazion's existed prior to the March Rule.
informal rulemaking~ by filing comments on the proposed rule. It is true, as intervenor Nuclear We find this contenemn unpersuasive. The March Energy Institute points out, that OCRE did not Rule addressed only the se ordug requirements for r
address the new reporting requirements in its the prescriptive option because the performance-comments; but because Dr. Reytblatt did so in his based opuan had not yet been adopted by the NRC.
letter of May 4,1995, OCRE is at liberty to raise Although petitioners were unaware of the March the same argument in its petition. See, e.g., Cellnet Rule when they filed their initial brief in this court, Commumcation, Inc. v. FCC, 965 F.2d 1106,1109 there is no question that their challenge was always (D.C.Cir.1992) (" Consideration of the issue by the limited to the reportmg requirements under agency at the behest of another party is enough to theperformance-based option.
Furthermore, the preserve it.")
Accordagly, we address, in turn, relief they seek-vacatur of the September Rule-petitioners' constitutional and prudential standmg.
could remedy their injury by requinng the NRC to undertake a new rulemalnng with respect to
- 1. Constitutional Standmg reporting under the performance-based option which, in turn, would enable petitioners to argue the Article III of the Constitution requires a showmg propriety of more stringent reporting requirements (1) that petitioners have suffered an actual or under the performance-based option.
immment injury that is concrete and particularized, Copr. C West 1997 No claim to orig. U.S. govt. works
,m,
_ - - - ~.
l
-F.3d-Page 5 (Cite as: 1997 WL 47184, *5 (D.C.Cir.))
i*
l
- 2. Prudential Standmg prudential standmg.
[
- 6 Petitioners also satisfy the requirements of B. The Merits prudential standmg. The relevant mquiry in this i
context is whether the injury is arguably within the Under the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"),
zone of interests to be protected or regulated by the the September Rule must be set aside if it is statute in <=radan-Scheduled Airknes Traffic
" arbitrary, capncious, an abuse of discretion, or Offices, Inc. v. Department of Defense, 87 F.3d otherwise not in iwit-i with law." 5 U.S.C. 6 i
1356,1359 (D.C.Cir.1996) (quotag Association of 706(2)(A) (1994).
"When an agency rule it j
Data Processing Serv. Orgs., Inc. v. Camp, 397 challenged as arbitrary and capncious, the scope ot i
U.S.150,153, 00 S.Ct. 827, 25 L.Ed.2d 184 judicial review is narrow. Courts may not substitute l
(1970)). R*can=* petitioners are not liu.asees, they their judgment for that of the agency." Western Coal are not " regulated" by the Atomic Energy Act.
Traffic league v. United States,677 F.2d 915,927
'Ihus, they must show that they are _ arguably (D.C.Cir.1982) (citstions omitted). "But... courts
" protected" by the statute by demonstrating that they must assure that the agency has provided a reasoned are either its intended beneficiaries or " suitable explanation for its rule." Id.
4 challaarrs' to enforce the stature, i.e., persocs whose " interests are sufficiently congruent with
- 7 Section 553 of the APA requires an agency, i
those of the intended beneficiaries that the litigants after notice and comment on a proposed rule, to are not more likely to frustrate than to further the
" incorporate in the rules adopted a concise general statutory objectives." First Nat'l Bank & Trust Co.
statement of their basis and purpose." 5 U.S.C. i v.' Nanonal Credit Union Admin., 988 F.2d 1272, 553(c) (1994). Thus, *[t]he basis and purpose 1275 (D.C.Cir.1993) (internal quotauon marks and statement is inextncably intertwined with the receipt citation omitted).
of commenta." Acuan on Smoking and Health v.
i CAB, 699 F.2d 1209, 1216 (D.C.Cir.1983) l We find that Dr. Reytblatt and OCRE fall within (internal quotation marks and footnote omitted). An the zone of interests protected by the statute. The agency need not address every comment, but it must Atomic Energy Act, 42 U.S.C. I 2011 et seq.
respond in a reasoned manner to those that raise
('Act"), authorizes the NRC to regulate the use of significant problems. See id. Nevertheless, "[t}he nuclear matenal and atomic energy in order to detail required in a statement of basis and purpose l
" protect the health and safety of the public.* 42 depends on.the subject of the regulation and the U.S.C. { 2012(d), (e); see also id. f 2012(i). To nature of the comments received." Id.
this end, the Act encourages public participation in j
the admmnarrative process. Thus it requires the Petitioners' pnmary contention is that the NRC l
NRC to grant a heanns upon request and admit as a failed to respond adequately to Dr. Reytblatt's j
party any person whose interest may be affected by concerns about the reportmg requirements under the a proceedmg performance-based approach.
These concerns, 2
for the guating, suspending, revoking, or however, were mentioned in the May 4,1995, letter
='aaamag of ar'y liicense or construction permit, or only in general (and highly abusive) terms. The application to transfer control, and in any letter did not explain why the public needed the proceedmg for the issuance or modification of information or how the reporting requirements rules and regulauons dealing with the activities of would hinder Dr. Reytblatt's ability to file section licensees [.]
2.206 petitions alening the NRC to possible Id. i 2239(a)(1)(A). Similarly, the Commission's violations. Indeed, the letter did not even mention regulations create a process whereby any member of that section. Rather, it referred to an irrelevant the pubhc may file a request "to modify, suspend, or
" Standard" that the NRC had not adopted and did revoke a license, or for such other action as may be not rely upon in establishing the reporting proper.' 10 C.F.R. 6 2.206(a).
Because Dr.
requirements for theperformance-based option.
Reytblatt and OCRE arguably need access to Moreover, the letter failed to mention the reporting information relating to successful as well as failed requirements under the March Rule and did not tests in order to exercise their rights under these explain why
'he requirements under the provisions, they meet the requirements for performance-based option should differ from those Copr. O West 1997 No claim to orig. U.S. govt. works
\\
l 1
-F.3d----
Page 6 (Cite er: 1997 WL 47184, *7 (D.C.Cir.))
- i already in effect for the prescriptive option.
petitioners concede that the letter arrived more than two months after the close of the comment period, Under the circumstances, we find the NRC's they assert that because the Commission represented response to Dr. Reytblatt's concerns over the that it had considered all comments, including those i
reporting rules and his accusauon that the NRC had received after the deadline, 60 Fed. Reg. at 49,499, maliciously intended to preclude the public from it was somehow obligated to respond to the imtimely obtaimag access to test data to be entirely adequate.
ones.
We have previously determmed that Given his substitution of invective for a reasoned
"[a]gencies are free to igncre... late filings."
explanation of why he opposed the proposed rule, it Personal Watercraft Indus. Ass'n v. Doi-i iza of was appropriate for the NRC to simply affirm that Commerce,48 F.3d 540,543 (D.C.Cir.1995). We its intent was not to conceal information from the see no basis for obliging an agency to specifically public, that informauon concerning failed leakage address untimely comments merely beame it has
- rate tests would still be made available to the public, iMened that it would take them into consideration.
and that the combination of on-site La=pae'ia= and 4
the dissemmation of data from failed tests would We note that Dr. Reytblatt and OCRE are free to ensure the integrity of the test data, petition the NRC, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. f 2.802, to conduct a new rulemakmg that would increase the Although the NRC did not directly respond to Dr.
reportmg requirements under both the yiMydve Reytblatt's suggested alternatives to the reporting and the performece-based options. OCRE has requirements, which included holding seminars already filed a separate petition urging the adoption discussing test data and requirmg licensees to submit of public right-to-know provisions that would give a computer disk enntaining test data to the NRC, its the public access to documents relevant to NRC-explanation was adequate in light of the general bcensed or NRC-regulated activities that are in the nature of Dr. Reytblatt's comments and the fact that possession oflicensees and license applicants. Ohio the prunary focus of the September Rule was the Citizens for Responsible Energy, Inc.; Receipt of establishment of a new performance-based approach Petition for Rulemaking, 59 Fed. Reg. 30,308, rather than modification of existing reporting 30,309 (1994). The NRC's counsel iMentM at oral requirements. See Thompson v. Clark, 741 F.2d argument that a draft response is circulating within 401, 408 (D.C.Cir.1984) (citation omitted) (Section the agency and is expected to be released shortly, if 553(c) of the APA "has never been interpreted to the NRC grants OCRE's petition, both petitioners require the agency to respond to every comment, or will be free to comment on any rule proposed as a j
to analy[z]e every issue or alternative raised by the ca===aca.
comtnents, no matter how insubstantial.").
III. CONCLUSION
- 8 Petitioners also contend that the NRC erred in failing to address Dr. Reytblatt's July 28, 1995, Because we find that the NRC did not act arbitrarily letter, which he wrote in response to the Public or capriciously when it amended Appendix J, the Comment Resolution. This second letter specifically petition for review is raised Dr. Reytblatt's concern that decreasing the amount of testing data available to the public would Denied.
hinder his ability to review nuclear power plants' compliance with NRC regulations.
Although END OF DOCUMENT Copr. O West 1997 No claim to orig. U.S. govt. works