Honeywell International, Inc. v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
393 U.S. App. D.C. 340
| D.C. Cir. | 2010Background
- Honeywell sought exemptions from the 10:1 tangible net worth requirement to decommissioning costs for its Metropolis Works license, relying on including goodwill (an intangible asset) in net worth calculations.
- NRC granted 2007 and 2008 exemptions based on goodwill and an A bond rating, with time-limited exemptions and license conditions conditioning annual self-guarantee testing.
- In 2009 Honeywell requested a third exemption; NRC denied it December 11, 2009, without addressing goodwill in the same manner as prior exemptions.
- Honeywell petitioned for judicial review under Hobbs Act review of the NRC denial as a final order amendatory to its license.
- Honeywell argued NRC changed its interpretation of 40.14 and acted inconsistently with its prior decisions granting exemptions that counted goodwill.
- The district of Columbia Circuit granted the petition, vacated the 2009 denial, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction under Hobbs Act. | Honeywell asserts court review is proper as NRC treated exemptions as license amendments. | NRC contends the matter falls outside Hobbs Act review for exemption decisions. | Court has jurisdiction under Hobbs Act to review the denial as a final order amending the license. |
| Mootness and capable of repetition. | The issue fits the capable-of-repetition, yet-evading-review exception. | Case is moot because the challenged period has passed and no live rights affected. | Case not moot; exception applies; actions likely to recur and evade review. |
| Arbitrary and capricious review of 2009 denial. | 2009 denial departed from prior reasoning; lacked reasoned explanation and consistency with 2007–2008 exemptions. | Commission reviewed and reasoned given changed circumstances and risk assessment. | Denial was arbitrary and inconsistent; remand for a reasoned explanation. |
| Change in policy interpretation of 40.14 without notice. | NRC failed to provide a reasoned, consistent reinterpretation of 40.14 like Alaska Professional Hunters would require notice. | Interim statements and annual reconsideration do not amount to a definitive policy change requiring notice. | Agency action inadequately explained; inconsistent with prior exemptions; remand warranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Florida Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729 (Supreme Court 1985) (clarified initial review of final licensing orders under Hobbs Act)
- Shoreham-Wading River Cent. Sch. Dist. v. NRC, 931 F.2d 102 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (jurisdiction over exemption decisions under Hobbs Act tailored to licensing context)
- Brodsky v. NRC, 578 F.3d 175 (2d Cir. 2009) (distinguished Lorion in context of exemption as license amendment)
- Newdow v. Roberts, 603 F.3d 1002 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (capable of repetition; evading review considerations in mootness)
- Christian Knights of the Ku Klux Klan Invisible Empire, Inc. v. District of Columbia, 972 F.2d 365 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (caps mootness and ongoing challenges context)
- Alaska Professional Hunters Ass'n, Inc. v. FAA, 177 F.3d 1030 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (requirement of notice for definitive reinterpretation; reliance concerns)
- MetWest Inc. v. Sec'y of Labor, 560 F.3d 506 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (reliance and interpretive stance in agency action)
- Hatch v. FERC, 654 F.2d 825 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (agency must provide reasoned explanation for policy changes)
- Jicarilla Apache Nation v. U.S. Dep't of Interior, 613 F.3d 1112 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (judicial review standards; consistency with precedent)
- Entergy Servs., Inc. v. FERC, 391 F.3d 1240 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (consideration of near-term regulatory consequences)
- Nuclear Info. & Res. v. NRC, 509 F.3d 562 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (deference to licensing determinations; standard of review)
- S. Co. Servs., Inc. v. FERC, 416 F.3d 39 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (mootness; capable of repetition)