Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corp. v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 707 F.3d 371

This case stems from Shieldalloy’s challenge to the NRC’s transfer of regulatory authority over Newfield (NJ) materials to New Jersey under §2021 of the Atomic Energy Act after remand from Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corp. v. NRC.
Shieldalloy submitted multiple decommissioning plans (2002, 2005, 2006, 2009); NRC rejected the first two as technically deficient and reviewed the 2006 plan but did not finalize on it, while the 2009 plan was reviewed but not acted upon.
New Jersey’s transfer (effective September 2009) was challenged by Shieldalloy as incompatible with NRC’s standards; the agency proceeded and the case was remanded for fuller consideration.
Criterion 25 of the NRC’s Criteria Document concerns ensuring no interference with ongoing license actions during transfer; the NRC asserted a ‘smooth transition’ would occur and Shieldalloy proposed excluding Newfield from transfer, which the NRC rejected.
On remand, the NRC concluded §2021(d) permits a state to be compatible and adequate, and interpreted §2021 to allow accepting but not negotiating partial transfers, leading to a contested reinterpretation that the court found reasonable and remanded for a more ALARA-focused analysis.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether §2021 requires an all-or-nothing transfer	Shieldalloy argues partial transfers should be possible and that exclusion of Newfield would be more compatible.	NRC contends §2021(b)-(d) supports accepting but not negotiating partial transfers and previously approved partial transfers in other contexts.	Reasonable interpretation; transfer partially permissible, remand for ALARA analysis.
Whether ALARA analysis in §20.1403(a) requires a comparative dose analysis between restricted and unrestricted release	Shieldalloy contends ALARA requires comparing doses of restricted vs. unrestricted release to select the safer option.	NRC interprets ALARA as not mandating a comparative dose analysis between release options; ALARA screens eligibility for restricted release, not chooses between options.	NRC’s interpretation upheld; remand for a more responsive ALARA analysis.
Whether the NRC’s handling of criterion 25 and the transfer’s effect on ongoing licensing constitutes arbitrary and capricious action	Shieldalloy asserts the NRC’s approach unreasonably disrupted license applications and violated criterion 25.	NRC argues that criterion 25 is narrowly administrative and does not require stopping all progress; its mitigation plan is proper.	Agency interpretation not arbitrary or capricious; remand specifically focused on ALARA analysis.

Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper, Inc., 556 U.S. 208 (U.S. 2009) (Chevron/agency deference for reasonable interpretation)
Thomas Jefferson Univ. v. Shalala, 512 U.S. 504 (U.S. 1994) (textual regulatory interpretation under review; deference standard)
Greater Boston Television v. FCC, 348 F.2d 108 (D.C. Cir. 1965) (need for reasoned explanation when policy changes)
Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (U.S. 1983) (limited deference; rational basis for agency action required)
Yakima Valley Cablevision, Inc. v. FCC, 794 F.2d 737 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (notice and reason-giving requirements in agency actions)