Ohio Nuclear-Free Network v. NRC, 53 F.4th 236

NRC issued a 30-year materials license in 2007 for the American Centrifuge Plant (initially held by U.S. Enrichment Corp.) authorizing enrichment up to 10% U-235; the plant was never built and the license later transferred to American Centrifuge.
In 2019 American Centrifuge contracted with DOE to demonstrate production of HALEU (up to 19.75% enrichment) and sought an NRC license amendment to authorize possession/production (requested possession up to 25% to account for variance).
American Centrifuge submitted an environmental report; the NRC posted notice of the amendment request as required by regulation.
Petitioners (Ohio Nuclear and Beyond Nuclear) emailed a letter to NRC staff urging preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and raising NEPA concerns but did not file a hearing request or seek to intervene under NRC procedures (10 C.F.R. § 2.309).
NRC conducted an Environmental Assessment (EA), issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), and granted the amended license; petitioners then filed a timely petition for review in this Court challenging the adequacy of NEPA review.
The Court concluded petitioners were not parties to the NRC adjudication because they failed to use the prescribed intervention/hearing procedures and therefore dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction under the Hobbs Act.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether this Court has jurisdiction under the Hobbs Act to review the NRC order	Petitioners claim NEPA violations and seek judicial review of the amended license	NRC argues Hobbs Act jurisdiction requires petitioners to have been parties in the NRC proceeding (party aggrieved)	Held: No jurisdiction — petitioners were not parties below, so cannot invoke Hobbs Act review
Whether the petitioners’ informal letter to NRC sufficed to make them parties/intervenors	Letter raised substantive NEPA objections and should suffice to preserve review	Informal submissions do not satisfy AEA/NRC rule requirement to request a hearing and plead admissible contentions	Held: Informal letter insufficient; must file a hearing request with contentions per 10 C.F.R. § 2.309
Whether NEPA creates an independent right to judicial review that bypasses AEA/NRC intervention procedures	Petitioners argue NEPA violations justify direct judicial review	Government: NEPA does not alter NRC’s statutory/regulatory intervention requirements	Held: NEPA does not displace NRC hearing procedures; petitioners still had to intervene to seek review
Whether the NRC erred in relying on an EA rather than preparing an EIS (merits)	Petitioners contend EA was inadequate and EIS required	Respondents dispute jurisdiction and did not pursue merits before Court	Held: Court did not reach merits; dismissed for lack of jurisdiction

Nuclear Info. & Res. Serv. v. NRC, 509 F.3d 562 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (describing NRC authority under the Atomic Energy Act)
Nat. Res. Def. Council v. NRC, 823 F.3d 641 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (intervention required to challenge NRC license actions)
Myersville Citizens for a Rural Cmty., Inc. v. FERC, 783 F.3d 1301 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (EA vs. EIS standards under NEPA)
ACA Int’l v. FCC, 885 F.3d 687 (D.C. Cir. 2018) ("party aggrieved" requires participation in agency proceedings)
Alaska v. FERC, 980 F.2d 761 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (party/intervenor requirement for review)
Water Transp. Ass’n v. ICC, 819 F.2d 1189 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (intervention prerequisite to judicial review)
Gage v. U.S. Atomic Energy Comm’n, 479 F.2d 1214 (D.C. Cir. 1973) (administrative procedure must be invoked before seeking court review)
Theodore Roosevelt Conservation P’ship v. Salazar, 616 F.3d 497 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (NEPA does not create a free-standing cause of action to bypass administrative procedures)
Beyond Nuclear v. NRC, 704 F.3d 12 (1st Cir. 2013) (NEPA does not alter NRC hearing procedures)
Union of Concerned Scientists v. NRC, 920 F.2d 50 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (procedures for raising NEPA contentions in NRC hearings)