Converdyn v. Moniz
68 F. Supp. 3d 34
D.D.C.2014Background
- ConverDyn sues DOE and Secretary Moniz in official capacity, challenging the 2014 Secretarial Determination and the 2013 Excess Uranium Inventory Management Plan under the APA and Privatization Act.
- DOE holds excess uranium inventories and plans to transfer/ship material to support cleanup and down-blending programs; the 2014 Determination authorized specific transfers but claimed no adverse material impact.
- 2008 Plan and 2013 Plan were not published in the Federal Register and were not subjected to notice-and-comment, though they framed DOE’s policy and procedures.
- 2014 Energy Resources International report and DOE analyses projected market impacts including reductions in ConverDyn’s sales and increases in costs, but DOE concluded the transfers would not be the market driver and not cause adverse material impact.
- The court denies a preliminary injunction due to lack of irreparable harm, but notes ConverDyn likely to succeed on at least one APA claim regarding the 2014 Determination; other claims about notice, value, and plan validity were not as likely to prevail.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2014 Secretarial Determination is arbitrary and capricious under the APA. | ConverDyn argues the 2014 Determination failed to address adverse material impact. | DOE contends the question is whether transfers drive market conditions, not solely ConverDyn. | ConverDyn likely to prevail on this APA claim. |
| Whether Irreparable harm supports a preliminary injunction. | ConverDyn suffers ongoing and future losses threatened by transfers. | DOE argues harms are not irreparable and are offset by program needs. | No irreparable harm shown; injunction denied on this basis. |
| Whether the 2013 Plan required notice and comment; whether FMV concerns are satisfied. | ConverDyn contends failure of notice and comment; questions over fair market value. | Plans were general policy statements exempt from notice and comment; FMV deemed acceptable. | No likelihood of success on these ancillary claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wis. Gas Co. v. FERC, 758 F.2d 669 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (irreparable harm must be certain, great, and imminent)
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (U.S. 1983) (requires a rational connection between facts and choice; arbitrary and capricious standard)
- PPL Wallingford Energy LLC v. FERC, 419 F.3d 1194 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (meaningful response to objections; reasoned decision required)
- Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches v. England, 454 F.3d 290 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (sliding-scale injunctive relief framework; irreparable harm essential)
- Winter v. NRDC, 555 U.S. 7 (U.S. 2008) (injunctions require likelihood of irreparable harm, likelihood of success, public interest, and balance of equities)