ML13199A023

Brodsky V. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

ML13199A023
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	01/07/2013
From:	US Federal Judiciary, Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Pickett D V
References
Download: ML13199A023 (24)

Text

• Judge Laura Taylor Swain of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.11-2016-cvBrodsky v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS F OR THE S ECOND C IRCUIT August Term, 2011 (Argued: May 3, 2012 Decided: January 7, 2013)

Docket No. 11-2016-cv

R ICHARD L. B RODSKY , New York State Assemblyman, From the 92nd Assembly District, in His Official and Individual Capacities, W ESTCHESTER

'S C ITIZENS AWARENESS NETWORK (W ESTCAN), S IERRA C LUB-A TLANTIC C HAPTER (S IERRA C LUB), Plaintiffs-Appellants

,

P UBLIC H EALTH AND S USTAINABLE E NERGY (P HASE), Plaintiff , v.U NITED S TATES N UCLEAR R EGULATORY C OMMISSION , Defendant-Appellee

, E NTERGY N UCLEAR O PERATIONS , I NC., Defendant.

Before: S ACK and R AGGI , Circuit Judges , and SWAIN , District Judge

.*

2Appeal from an award of summary judgment by the United States District Courtfor the Southern District of New York (Loretta A. Preska, Chief Judge), in favor of theUnited States Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC") on plaintiffs' challenge to the NRC's grant of an exemption to the Indian Point nuclear power plant from compliance with certain fire safety regulations. A summary order filed today affirms the judgment in part as to those of plaintiffs' challenges that we hold to be without merit. This opinion vacates the judgment in part, insofar as the district court rejected plaintiffs' argument thatthe exemption was granted in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act's public participation regulations, and remands the matter for further proceedings.

A FFIRMED I N P ART , V ACATED IN P ART , and R EMANDED.

R ICHARD L. B RODSKY, Esq., White Plains, New York, for Plaintiffs-Appellants

.BENJAMIN H. T ORRANCE (Sarah S. Normand, on the brief), AssistantUnited States Attorneys, on behalf of Preet Bharara, UnitedStates Attorney for the Southern District of New York, New

York, New York, for Defendant-Appellee

.Kelly A. Berkell, Office of Assemblywoman Amy R. Paulin,Scarsdale, New York, for Amicus Curiae New York Legislators

.

3 R EENA R AGGI , Circuit Judge

On September 28, 2007, defendant United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission("NRC") granted defendant Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. ("Entergy"), an exemption from compliance with certain fire safety regulations at its Indian Point nuclear power plant operating unit No. 3 ("Indian Point 3"), located in Westchester County, New York.In December 2007, plaintiffs Richard Brodsky, a former member of the New York State Assembly; the Westchester's Citizens Awareness Network; and the Sierra Club-Atlantic Chapter, unsuccessfully petitioned the NRC to reopen the exemption proceeding and to hold a public hearing on the merits of Entergy's request. This court dismissed plaintiffs' direct appeal from the NRC's denial of that petition for lack of jurisdiction. See Brodskyv. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n , 578 F.3d 175, 180 (2d Cir. 2009). Plaintiffsthereafter commenced the instant action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Loretta A. Preska, Chief Judge), alleging that the NRC'saward of the exemption to Entergy violated the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"),the Atomic Energy Act ("AEA"), and the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA").

On this appeal, plaintiffs challenge the district court's award of summary judgment in favor of Entergy on these claims. See Brodsky v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n , 783 F. Supp. 2d 448, 450 (S.D.N.Y. 2011).By summary order filed today, we affirm the challenged judgment in all respectsbut one, which is the subject of this opinion. Specifically, insofar as plaintiffs contend 4that the NRC granted the challenged exemption in violation of NEPA's regulations,which allow for public involvement where appropriate and practicable, see 40 C.F.R.§§ 1501.4(b), 1506.6(c), we conclude that the agency record does not permit a reviewingcourt to determine whether a reasoned basis exists for the NRC's decision not to affordany such public involvement in the exemption decision. We therefore vacate thejudgment of the district court, which implicitly rejected this argument, with respect to plaintiffs' NEPA challenge only, and we remand this case to the district court with instructions for it in turn to remand to the NRC so that the agency may (1) supplement theadministrative record to explain why allowing public input into the exemption request was inappropriate or impracticable, or (2) take such other action as it may deem appropriate to resolve this issue. See Florida Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729,744 (1985) ("[I]f the reviewing court simply cannot evaluate the challenged agency action on the basis of the record before it, the proper course, except in rare circumstances, is to remand to the agency for additional investigation or explanation."). This panel will retain jurisdiction for the purpose of ruling, if necessary, on any appeal from a further districtcourt judgment addressing the agency's action on remand. See United States v. Jacobson

, 15 F.3d 19 (2d Cir. 1994).

I.Factual BackgroundThe Atomic Energy Act of 1954 "establishes a comprehensive regulatoryframework for the ongoing review of nuclear power plants located in the United States" 5and vests the Atomic Energy Commission, and its successor agency, the NRC, with broadregulatory power to ensure "that the generation and transmission of nuclear power does not unreasonably threaten the public welfare." County of Rockland v. U.S. NuclearRegulatory Comm'n, 709 F.2d 766, 769 (2d Cir. 1983); accord Riverkeeper, Inc. v.

Collins, 359 F.3d 156, 168 (2d Cir. 2004) (noting NRC's mission to "insure adequateprotection of public health and safety from risks associated with nuclear plants").

Pursuant to that authority, in 1980, the NRC upgraded its fire safety rules in response to acatastrophic fire at the Browns Ferry power plant near Decatur, Alabama. See FireProtection Program for Operating Nuclear Power Plants, 45 Fed. Reg. 76,602 (Nov. 19, 1980); 10 C.F.R. pt. 50, App. R. Regulations authorize the NRC to grant exemptions from specific fire safety protocols, provided the applied-for exemption does "not present an undue risk to the public health and safety," 10 C.F.R. § 50.12(a)(1), and "special circumstances" warrant the exemption, id. § 50.12(a)(2). The exemption process hasbeen recognized to afford a "critical element of flexibility" in potentially cumbersome firesafety compliance by allowing power plants "to show that alternative fire protection systems protect the public safety at the same high level as the system chosen by the Commission." Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n , 673 F.2d 525, 530, 537 (D.C. Cir. 1982).In both 1984 and 1987, Indian Point 3 secured exemptions from fire safetyregulations not relevant here. The grant of these exemptions was by no means pro forma

.

6As the district court observed, the NRC has had "a long history of reviewing the [firesafety] regulations at [Indian Point 3] and in most cases has denied requests forexemptions." Brodsky v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n, 783 F. Supp. 2d at 452 n.3(noting that NRC staff recommended granting only eight of twenty-six exemptions

requested after regulations took effect).Existing rules contemplate a "defense-in-depth" approach to fire protection withthree objectives: (1) "[t]o prevent fires from starting"; (2) "[t]o detect rapidly, control, and extinguish promptly those fires that do occur"; and (3) "[t]o provide protection forstructures, systems, and components important to safety so that a fire that is not promptly extinguished by the fire suppression activities will not prevent the safe shutdown of the plant." 10 C.F.R. pt. 50, App. R, II.A. A plant may satisfy the third objective by enclosing a redundant safety shutdown system in a barrier that will withstand a fire for atleast one hour, if accompanied by fire detectors and an automatic fire suppression system.

See id. III.G.2. Since at least 1987, Indian Point 3 has relied on a fire barrier called Hemyc,originally rated for one hour of fire protection, to satisfy the third objective of the NRC's fire safety regulations. The NRC first began to develop concerns about Hemyc's effectiveness in 1999, prompting renewed testing of that material. On April 1, 2005, the NRC informed its licensees that Hemyc and another fire barrier material, MT, did not perform for one hour as designed because of shrinkage of the material during testing.

7Later that month, NRC staff held a public meeting with licensees and interested members of the public to discuss these concerns.In May 2005, a number of citizen groups petitioned the NRC pursuant to 10 C.F.R.§ 2.206 to modify or suspend the operating licenses of various nuclear power plants, including Indian Point 3, that were using Hemyc or MT for fire safety, arguing that the plants were "operating in violation of NRC fire protection requirements . . . resulting in a degradation of defense-in-depth fire protection and safe shut down in the event of a significant fire." All Nuclear Power Plants That Use Hemyc/MT Fire Barriers, 71 Fed.

Reg. 3,344-01, 3,345 (Jan. 20, 2006) (notice of decision under § 2.206).

On January 20,2006, the NRC granted the citizens groups' petition in part, publicly stating that it would

"review all affected plants in detail" in an e ffort to "take appropriate actions to resolve theissues with the use of Hemyc[] material commensurate with the safety significance of theprotected systems." Id.

see also In re Carolina Power & Light Co. (Shearon HarrisNuclear Power Station, Unit 1; H.B. Robinson Plant, Unit 2), 63 N.R.C. 133, 140 (2006)(stating that NRC shared citizens groups' concerns and was addressing Hemyc "performance issues in an expeditious manner"). Pursuant thereto, on April 10, 2006, the NRC issued a generic letter entitled "Potentially Nonconforming Hemyc and MT Fire Barrier Configurations," directing all its power plant licensees to evaluate their facilities to ensure compliance with applicable fire safety regulations and to furnish information confirming such compliance.

1 In granting the exemption, the NRC concluded that the requested 30- and 24-minutefire barriers sufficed to "ensure that one of the redundant trains necessary to achieve and 8In its June 8, 2006 response to this NRC directive, Entergy reported that IndianPoint 3 was not in compliance with agency fire safety protocols due to its use of Hemyc.

Entergy stated that it had instituted compensatory measures, such as conducting hourly fire-watch tours and ensuring the operability of its fire detection systems. On July 24, 2006, Entergy applied to the NRC for an expansion of its existing exemptions to require only a 30-minute fire resistance rating in two areas of Indian Point 3 protected by Hemyc.

By August 16, 2007, however, Entergy had concluded that it could not guarantee satisfaction of a 30-minute resistance rating in one of the areas and sought NRCallowance for a 24-minute rating at that site.On August 27, 2007, the NRC's Fire Protection Branch recommended grantingEntergy the requested exemption. On September 24, 2007, the NRC issued a related environmental assessment ("EA"), see 40 C.F.R. § 1508.9, and finding of no significantimpact ("FONSI"), see id. § 1508.13. These were published in the Federal Register onSeptember 28, 2007, see Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Indian Point NuclearGenerating Unit No. 3, 72 Fed. Reg. 55,254-01 (Sept. 28, 2007) (EA and FONSI), thesame day that the NRC awarded the exemption, which itself was published in the FederalRegister on October 4, 2007, see Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Indian Point NuclearGenerating Unit No. 3, 72 Fed. Reg. 56,798-02 (Oct. 4, 2007) (revision to existing exemptions).

1 maintain hot shutdown conditions remains free of fire damage in the event of a fire," 72 Fed.Reg. at 56,801, and thus that "application of the regulation [wa]s not necessary to achievethe underlying purpose of the rule," id.

(citing 10 C.F.R. § 50.12(a)(2)(ii) (listing statedreason among "special circumstances" justifying exemption)). The NRC also emphasized Indian Point 3's compliance with the first and second objectives of "defense-in-depth" protection, noting the relative absence of ignition sources in the affected fire areas, the factthat the principal combustibles were flame-retardant asbestos-jacketed cables, and the presence of automatic fire detection systems and automatic and manual fire suppression systems, all of which would limit the severity of a credible fire. Referencing this reasoning, the EA and FONSI stated that Indian Point 3's continued use of the "Hemyc fire barrier in these zones . . . will not significantly increase the probability or consequences of accidents."

72 Fed. Reg. at 55,254.

2 Plaintiffs also asserted that the NRC's decision did not factor in security risks posedby plant employees or from a light aircraft strike on the facility.

9Plaintiffs submit that the September 28, 2007 publication of the EA and FONSIwas the first public notice of Entergy's 2006 exemption request. On the day the exemption grant was made public, New York's Attorney General filed a written request for the NRC to reconsider the exemption and to solicit public comment, which the NRC

denied. On December 3, 2007, plaintiffs presented the NRC with a similar request,contending, among other things, that it was implausible that the steps needed to control afire could be taken in 24 minutes, that such a scenario had not b een adequately tested, andthat the generic testing relied upon by Entergy and the NRC did not adequately considerthe conditions or equipment present at Indian Point 3.

2 Plaintiffs offered varioussupporting documents, including an affidavit from Ulrich Witte, a mechanical engineer whose 24 years' experience included responsibility for fire safety compliance at the Rancho Seco Nuclear Power Station in Sacramento, California. Witte labeled Entergy's 1024-minute timeframe "entirely unrealistic." Witte Decl. 3. He also faulted the NRC foroffsetting the high risks posed in the event of a fire at Indian Point 3 against the low risk that a fire would ignite or that the areas at issue would combust.

The NRC deniedplaintiffs' request on January 30, 2008, stating only that Entergy's application did not

trigger hearing rights under the AEA.On March 27, 2008, plaintiffs, with the support of New York State as amicus curiae, petitioned this court for review of the NRC's denial pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 2342(4) (conferring exclusive jurisdiction on Courts of Appeals to review "all final orders of the [NRC] made reviewable by [42 U.S.C. § 2239]"). This court dismissed the

petition on August 27, 2009, concluding sua sponte that we lacked jurisdiction under the"plain text" of § 2239. Brodsky v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n , 578 F.3d at 180-81(construing § 2239(a)(1)(A)'s reference to "granting, suspending, revoking, or amending

of any license," over which direct appellate review may be had, not to include issuance ofexemption). Plaintiffs commenced the instant action in the district court on December 30, 2009,alleging violations of the APA, AEA, and NEPA. By Opinion and Order dated March 4,2011, the district court awarded summary judgment to defendants on all claims. SeeBrodsky v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n, 783 F. Supp. 2d 448. While the districtcourt discussed various of plaintiffs' challenges, it did not specifically address their 11argument that the NRC violated their NEPA right, as members of the public, toparticipate in the exemption process. We consider that claim here.

II. DiscussionA.Standard of ReviewNEPA is, at its core, "a procedural statute that mandates a process rather than aparticular result." Stewart Park & Reserve Coal., Inc. (SPARC) v. Slater , 352 F.3d 545,557 (2d Cir. 2003). Thus, judicial "review of administrative choices under NEPA . . . focuses primarily on the procedural regularity of the decision," rather than onits substance. Sierra Club v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs , 772 F.2d 1043, 1055 (2d Cir.

1985); see Coalition on W. Valley Nuclear Wastes v. Chu , 592 F.3d 306, 310 (2d Cir.2009) (reiterating that reviewing court's role is limited to "insur[ing] that the agency has taken a hard look at environmental consequences . . . of the action to be taken," rather than evaluating merits of decision (internal quotation marks omitted)). Because NEPA does not itself provide for judicial review, the APA controls. SeeSierra Club v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs , 772 F.2d at 1050. Pursuant to the APA, courtsreview contested agency action to determine if it is "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law." 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). Although

highly deferential, this standard "does not equate to no review." Wilson v. CIA , 586 F.3d171, 185 (2d Cir. 2009) (describing boundaries of deferential review in another context).

Notably, the APA contemplates that, in decidi ng a challenge to agency action, a court will 12review the administrative record to ensure "that the agency examined the relevant dataand articulated a satisfactory explanation for its action. Moreover, the agency's decision must reveal a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made." NaturalRes. Def. Council, Inc. v. U.S. EPA, 658 F.3d 200, 215 (2d Cir. 2011) (internal quotationmarks and alterations omitted); see also National Audubon Soc'y v. Hoffman , 132 F.3d 7,14 (2d Cir. 1997) (confining judicial review to administrative record compiled by agencywhen it made challenged decision). Further, while a court can "uphold a decision of less than ideal clarity if the agency's path may reasonably be discerned," it may not itself "supply a reasoned basis for the agency's action that the agency itself has not given."

Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. U.S. EPA, 658 F.3d at 215 (internal quotation marksomitted). Thus, when an administrative record is insufficient to permit a court to discern an agency's reasoning or to conclude that the agency has considered all relevant factors, a court may remand the matter to the agency to allow for supplementation of the record.

See Florida Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. at 744; National Audubon Soc'y v.Hoffman , 132 F.3d at 14. This is such a case.B.Public Participation in the NEPA ProcessNEPA's animating purposes and methods of operation have been discussed atlength in prior decisions. See, e.g., Department of Transp. v. Pub. Citizen, 541 U.S. 752,757-58 (2004) (describing NEPA's statutory and regulatory scheme); National AudubonSoc'y v. Hoffman, 132 F.3d at 12. For purposes of this appeal, we focus on those parts of 3 At oral argument, the government suggested that the law was unclear as to whetherCEQ's NEPA regulations bind the NRC. See Taxpayers of Mich. Against Casinos v. Norton

,433 F.3d 853, 861 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (noting that "binding effect of CEQ regulations is far from clear" because authority derived from executive order rather than legislation); LimerickEcology Action, Inc. v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n, 869 F.2d 719, 725 (3d Cir. 1989)("CEQ guidelines are not binding on an agency that has not expressly adopted them."). The weight of authority, however, holds CEQ regulations binding on federal agencies. See, e.g.

,Piedmont Envtl. Council v. FERC, 558 F.3d 304, 318 (4th Cir. 2009); City of Dallas v. Hall

, 13the statute and regulations providing for public disclosure and input regarding theenvironmental impact of contemplated agency action. See Pogliani v. U.S. Army Corpsof Eng'rs, 306 F.3d 1235, 1237-38 (2d Cir. 2002) (recognizing that Congress enactedNEPA "to ensure that federal agencies examine and disclose the potential environmentalimpacts of projects before allowing them to proceed," which process "must involve the

public"). NEPA directs agencies contemplating "major [f]ederal actions significantlyaffecting the quality of the human environment" to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement ("EIS") demonstrating agency consideration of the reasonably foreseeable environmental effects. 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C); accord City of New York v. Slater , 145F.3d 568, 571 (2d Cir. 1998). Implementing regulations promulgated by the Council on Environmental Quality ("CEQ") permit agencies categorically to exclude certain classes of actions from the EIS requirement on the ground that such actions do not individually orcumulatively have a significant effect on the environment. See 40 C.F.R.§§ 1507.3(b)(2), 1508.4; see also 10 C.F.R. § 51.22(c) (establishing categoricalexclusions for various NRC actions).

3 In the absence of such a categorical exclusion, any 562 F.3d 712, 722 (5th Cir. 2009); Colorado Wild v. U.S. Forest Serv., 435 F.3d 1204, 1209 (10th Cir. 2006); Defenders of Wildlife v. Hogarth , 330 F.3d 1358, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003);Heartwood, Inc. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 230 F.3d 947, 949 (7th Cir. 2000). Because thegovernment conceded, at least for purposes of this appeal, that it would be fair to assume that the regulations do bind the NRC, cf. 10 C.F.R. § 51.10 (noting NRC policy voluntarily totake account of CEQ regulations, subject to certain conditions), we operate on that assumption here, deeming any contrary argument forfeited, see Norton v. Sam's Club , 145F.3d 114, 117 (2d Cir. 1998) (holding that "stating an issue without advancing an argument"

forfeits issue on appeal).

14doubt as to whether contemplated action requires an EIS must be resolved by preparingan EA. See Department of Transp. v. Pub. Citizen, 541 U.S. at 757 (describing EA as"concise public document that briefly provides sufficient evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare an EIS" (alterations omitted) (citing 40 C.F.R.

§ 1508.9(a))). If, pursuant to the EA, the agency concludes that no EIS is required, it must provide its reasons in a FONSI. See id. at 757-58; 40 C.F.R. §§ 1501.4(e), 1508.13.As discussed in the background section of this opinion, the NRC published an EA and FONSI with respect to the exemption challenged in this case on September 28, 2007, the same date that it granted the exemption.While NEPA itself does not assign the public any particular role in theaforementioned processes, see generally Hanly v. Kleindienst, 471 F.2d 823, 835 (2d Cir.1972) (recognizing that "[t]here is no statutory requirement" for public hearings underNEPA), implementing regulations identify public scrutiny as an "essential" part of the NEPA process, 40 C.F.R. § 1500.1(b) ("Accurate scientific analysis, expert agency comments, and public scrutiny are essential to implementing NEPA."). Thus, the 15regulations provide that "NEPA procedures must insure that environmental information isavailable to public officials and citizens before decisions are made and before actions are taken." Id. Moreover, "[a]gencies shall" both "[m]ake diligent efforts to involve thepublic in preparing and implementing their NEPA procedures" and "solicit appropriate information from the public." Id. § 1506.6(a), (d). Such involvement can include publichearings "whenever appropriate," a determination informed by whether there is

"[s]ubstantial environmental controversy concerning the proposed action or substantial interest in holding the hearing." Id. § 1506.6(c). Given the discretion afforded agenciesby the regulatory text, however, we will not readily second guess an agency decision not to hold a public hearing in a particular case. See Friends of Ompompanoosuc v. FERC

, 968 F.2d 1549, 1557 (2d Cir. 1992) (upholding agency decision to forgo public hearing in connection with licensing of hydroelectric power station despite panel's view that "hearing might have been beneficial"). As some courts have recognized, these regulations do not clearly define howpublic involvement requirements might apply where, as here, an agency prepares only anEA (and FONSI) and not an EIS. See Taxpayers of Mich. Against Casinos v. Norton

,433 F.3d 852, 861 (D.C. Cir. 2006); Greater Yellowstone Coal. v. Flowers, 359 F.3d1257, 1279 (10th Cir. 2004). Whereas regulations require a draft EIS to be circulated for public comment prior to its adoption, see 40 C.F.R. §§ 1502.9, 1503.1, in the case of anEA, the agency is required to "involve environmental agencies, applicants, and the 16public" only "to the extent practicable," id. § 1501.4(b). And only in "limitedcircumstances" must an agency make a FONSI "available for public review . . . for 30 days" prior to agency action. Id. § 1501.4(e)(2); see Pogliani v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs, 306 F.3d at 1238 (citing § 1501.4(e)(2) in rejecting argument that Army Corps, inissuing permit for construction of gas-fired power plant, "erred by failing to release its draft EA and FONSI for public comment prior to their issuance"). Thus, at the same timethat the regulations "encourage public involvement in" EAs, Town of Rye v. Skinner , 907F.2d 23, 24 (2d Cir. 1990), they afford agencies considerable discretion to decide the extent to which such public involvement is "practicable," 40 C.F.R. § 1501.4(b); see generally Taxpayers of Mich. Against Casinos v. Norton, 433 F.3d at 861 (notingagency's "significant discretion in determining" how it complies with NEPA's public participation regulations in preparing EA). When the exercise of that discretion is challenged on appeal, the reviewing court properly considers whether the lack of public input prevented the agency "from weighing all the factors essential to exercising its judgment [under NEPA] in a reasonable manner." Friends of Ompompanoosuc v. FERC

, 968 F.2d at 1557. C.The Record Is Insufficient To Permit Judicial Review of Plaintiffs' PublicParticipation Challenge to the Granted ExemptionIn opposing plaintiffs' NEPA challenge to the exemption granted to Indian Point 3,the NRC maintains that "no hearing was required under the NEPA regulations." NRC Br.

4 In a post-argument letter filed with the court pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 28(j), theNRC suggests that plaintiffs had effective notice of Entergy's exemption request before the 1758. That proposition is not novel, see Friends of Ompompanoosuc v. FERC , 968 F.2d at1557, but it misses the point of plaintiffs' argument. Plaintiffs do not contend that theNRC was required to afford a specific type of public participation; rather, they complain that the NRC failed to notify or solicit feedback from the public at all regarding thechallenged exemption. See Appellants' Br. 53.The NRC cites no case in which a court has held an agency's issuance of an EAand FONSI to satisfy NEPA despite a comparable lack of public participation. While we have on two occasions ruled that an agency complied with NEPA despite failing to circulate final versions of its analyses for comment prior to their publication, the agencies had previously held multiple hearings or afforded other opportunities for public input.

See Pogliani v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs, 306 F.3d at 1238; Town of Rye v. Skinner

,907 F.2d at 24. Conversely, in a case in which we held that no public hearing under NEPA was required, we reviewed an administrative record showing that public input inother forms had alerted the agency to the citizenry's concerns before the challenged decision was reached. See Friends of Ompompanoosuc, 968 F.2d at 1552 (noting that, inpreparing EA, agency had "obtained comments on the application from local citizens and citizens groups" as well as State of Vermont). The record before us fails to provide any agency explanation for why no public participation was deemed practicable orappropriate with respect to the challenged exemption.

4 September 2007 publication of the EA and FONSI because (1) on March 15, 2007, the NRCplaced in its online document repository a request it had made to Entergy for more information regarding the exemption sought; and (2) on August 29, 2007, it similarly placedonline Entergy's actual exemption application. Even if we were to take judicial notice of these belatedly proffered facts, which have been known to the government throughout this litigation, they would not alter our conclusion that remand is required. Nothing in the administrative record indicates that the agency itself relied on the existence of these electronic filings to deny plaintiffs' motion to reopen the exemption proceeding on the theory that plaintiffs had been provided with sufficient notice and opportunity to comment on the requested exemption before a final decision was made. See Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc.

v. U.S. EPA, 658 F.3d at 215 (holding that reviewing court may not supply reasoned basisfor agency action that agency itself has not given); cf. Theodore Roosevelt ConservationP'ship v. Salazar, 616 F.3d 497, 519-20 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (affirming Bureau of LandManagement's compliance with NEPA in granting drilling permits, where agency had provided website notice that it was preparing EAs for drilling sites approximately one month before granting permits and had made permit applications available for public inspection beginning almost two years earlier). On the record before us, we cannot confidently conclude that this website notice afforded plaintiffs "a substantial opportunity to comment on [Entergy's] proposals before they were approved." Theodore Roosevelt Conservation P'ship v. Salazar, 616 F.3d at 519 (internal quotation marks omitted).

18Certainly, the record does not demonstrate, nor does the government argue, thatexigent circumstances made it impracticable to afford public notice or participation in the fifteen months between Entergy's June 2006 application and the NRC's September 2007 publication of the EA and FONSI on the same day that it granted the exemption. Nor does the record reveal a basis for the NRC to conclude that notice and opportunity for public comment would not have been appropriate. Indeed, a contrary conclusion finds support in the record evidence of public interest in the question of how nuclear plants satisfied their fire barrier obligations. Once NRC testing raised questions about Hemyc's effectiveness, several environmental groups filed petitions with the NRC to modify or suspend the licenses of certain nuclear power plants, including Indian Point 3, relying on 19Hemyc as a fire barrier.

See 71 Fed. Reg. at 3,345. Insofar as the NRC argues thatplaintiffs have failed to demonstrate a public controversy in the subject matter of Entergy's particular exemption request, we are not inclined to assume in light of these petitions, and in the absence of a more specific agency statement, see National AudubonSoc'y v. Hoffman , 132 F.3d at 14, that the NRC's rationale for not providing notice of theexemption request or an opportunity for public comment represents a reasonable perception of public indifference to the matter, see generally American BirdConservancy, Inc. v. FCC, 516 F.3d 1027, 1035 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (recognizing"Catch-22" in requiring plaintiffs to show public interest in or controversy over agency action that has not been meaningfully disclosed). In fact, events occurring immediately

after public disclosure of the exemption caution against any such assumption by this court.The very day the NRC's grant of an exemption to Indian Point 3 was published inthe Federal Register, the State of New York lodged objections. Two months later, plaintiffs filed their own petition to reopen for reconsideration and public input. Contrary to the NRC's urging, plaintiffs' lengthy submission does not assert simple "opposition to a use." Friends of Ompompanoosuc v. FERC, 968 F.2d at 1557 (internal quotation marksomitted). Rather, it reveals a specific controversy regarding the NRC's conclusion that a24-minute fire barrier is sufficient to protect Indian Point 3 from a catastrophic fire.

20The NRC submits that even if these circumstances show that a public hearingmight have been "beneficial," id., that is not enough to conclude that a hearing waslegally required. We do not suggest otherwise. But the record in this case-devoid of any evidence of public input on Entergy's exemption request, and with no explanation by the NRC of its decision not to afford public participation of any kind-does not permit usto decide whether the agency nevertheless was capable of "weighing all the factors essential to exercising its judgment in a reasonable manner." Id.In arguing otherwise, the NRC submits that its rationale for not granting plaintiffs'petition to reopen may reasonably be discerned from the fact that "[t]he EA here shows NRC found no risk of environmental effect at all," and therefore no possible "substantial environmental controversy." NRC 28(j) Letter 2. We are not persuaded. The NRC's own conclusion that the fire safety exemption grant to Entergy "will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment," 72 Fed. Reg. at 55,254; see 40 C.F.R.

§ 1508.13, cannot itself prove that there is no objective controversy regarding the subjectmatter of the exemption. Indeed, to the extent that the NRC found that the exemption willnot "significantly increase the probability or consequences of accidents," 72 Fed. Reg. at

55,254, this conclusion is precisely the point disputed by plaintiffs and on which theyseek to be heard. Insofar as the NRC declines to hear plaintiffs' concerns-not in a particular form, but at all-we think it best not to guess at the agency's reasons, but toremand for the agency to supplement the record so that it may explain its denial or 21otherwise demonstrate that it has in fact taken the kind of "hard look at environmentalconsequences" that it would have taken if the public were allowed to comment on the exemption request. Coalition on W. Valley Nuclear Wastes v. Chu, 592 F.3d at 310(internal quotation marks omitted).The NRC argues additionally that any failure to afford public participation beforegranting the exemption in this case was harmless because plaintiffs were free to initiate a citizen petition to challenge the exemption after the fact. See 10 C.F.R. § 2.206. It is byno means apparent that the mere availability of a post-hoc petition process renders harmless any and every failure by an agency to abide by NEPA's public participation regulations. Cf. Friends of Ompompanoosuc v. FERC, 968 F.2d at 1557-58 (holding thatpetitioner could not show prejudice from agency's failure to circulate EA supplement given its ability "to petition [agency] for reconsideration and rehearing," combined withfact that it had obtained document with "ample time" to comment before agencydecision). Were we to entertain this argument, we would have to consider it in the context of CEQ regulations providing that "NEPA procedures must insure that environmental information is available to public officials and citizens before decisions aremade and before actions are taken," 40 C.F.R. § 1500.1(b) (emphasis added), as well asthe Supreme Court's admonition that the purpose of "the broad dissemination of information mandated by NEPA" is to "permit[] the public and other government agencies to react to the effects of a proposed action at a meaningful time," and not "after 22it is too late to correct," Marsh v. Or. Natural Res. Council, 490 U.S. 360, 371 (1989).We do not foreclose the possibility that the availability of the citizen-petition process may dissuade a court from vacating a NEPA-defective agency decision that might still be corrected. Nevertheless, we think that where, as here, we order remand to afford the agency an opportunity to supplement the record to show that there was no error at all-orto take whatever steps it deems necessary to remove any doubt in that regard-it is in the interest of all parties, and of the public served by Indian Point 3, to proceed in that manner before considering whether the alleged errors should be dismissed as harmless. In ordering remand, we are mindful that the Ninth Circuit has held that a"complete failure to involve or even inform the public about an agency's preparation of an EA and a FONSI" violates NEPA's public participation regulations. Citizens ForBetter Forestry v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., 341 F.3d 961, 970 (9th Cir. 2003) (identifyingviolation despite fact that draft rule was published and public meetings held); cf. BeringStrait Citizens v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs, 524 F.3d 938, 953 (9th Cir. 2008) (holdingthat, on facts presented, agency had satisfied its NEPA obligation when preparing EA to"provide the public with sufficient environmental information, considered in the totality of circumstances, to permit members of the public to weigh in with their views and thus inform the agency decision-making process"). This court, however, has previously suggested otherwise with respect to the right of advance public access to these particular analyses. See Pogliani v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs, 306 F.3d at 1238. Thus, we deem 23it premature to consider any categorical rule until after the agency has had the opportunityon remand to supplement the record as provided in the next section of this opinion.D.Procedure on RemandOur decision today is narrow. We pronounce no rule as to the degree or form ofpublic participation required before the NRC can grant exemptions from its protocols.

Nor do we hold that agencies always need to explain their decisions as to how muchpublic participation to afford pursuant to NEPA. We conclude only that, on the record presented in this case, we cannot conduct even deferential judicial review of plaintiffs'claim that the NRC granted the challenged exemption in violation of NEPA's public

participation provisions. We therefore vacate the judgment of the district court with respect to plaintiffs'NEPA challenge only, and we remand the matter to the district court with instructions for it in turn to remand to the NRC so that the agency may: (1) supplement the administrativerecord to provide an explanation, with supporting affidavits or findings of fact, as to whyaffording public input into the exemption request was inappropriate or impracticable; or (2) take other such action as it may deem appropriate to resolve this issue. See FloridaPower & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. at 744; National Audubon Soc'y v. Hoffman , 132 F.3d at 14. If plaintiffs conclude that the agency's response fails to allay their NEPAconcerns, they should timely seek further review in the district court, which shall take 24whatever steps it deems appropriate under the circumstances to dispose of plaintiffs'renewed NEPA claim. This panel will retain jurisdiction for the purpose of ruling, if necessary, on any timely appeal from the district court's final judgment. See UnitedStates v. Jacobson, 15 F.3d at 22. On a further appeal, we will set a schedule forexpedited review on the basis of the augmented record. No oral argument will be heard

absent further order of this Court.

III.ConclusionTo summarize, we conclude that plaintiffs' challenges to the NRC's grant of anexemption to Entergy from certain fire safety regulations in the operation of its Indian Point 3 nuclear power plant are generally without merit. In one respect, however-i.e.

,plaintiffs' claim that the NRC awarded the challenged exemption in violation of NEPA's public participation provisions-the administrative record is insufficient to permit meaningful judicial review. Thus, remand is necessary to allow the agency to supplement its decision.The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED IN PART in accordance with thesummary order filed today and VACATED IN PART in accordance with this opinion, and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion, whichproceedings are to be concluded within 120 days of the issuance of the mandate or suchfurther time as this court shall authorize.