## Facts

- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) historically conducted reactor licensing hearings with highly formal, trial-like procedures, including extensive discovery and cross-examination.
- Anticipating many reactor license renewal matters and concerned about delay and resource burdens, the NRC adopted 2004 procedural rules to reduce formality and improve efficiency in reactor licensing proceedings.
- The 2004 rules replaced traditional discovery with specified mandatory disclosures and limited cross-examination to circumstances where it was necessary, subject to the presiding officer’s discretion.
- Citizens Awareness Network, Inc. and other public-interest groups, supported by several state attorneys general, petitioned for judicial review of the rulemaking.
- Petitioners argued the rules exceeded statutory authority because reactor licensing hearings must be conducted under the Administrative Procedure Act’s (APA) formal adjudication provisions and further argued the NRC’s change in course lacked a reasoned explanation.
- The First Circuit addressed an initial jurisdictional question and proceeded to review the merits of the consolidated petitions.

## Issues

1. Whether the Atomic Energy Act’s hearing requirement compels the NRC to provide trial-type procedures equivalent to APA formal adjudication with broad discovery and cross-examination as of right.
2. Whether the NRC’s adoption of the 2004 hearing rules constituted arbitrary and capricious agency action due to an insufficient explanation for a substantial departure from prior practice.
3. Whether the streamlined procedures were constitutionally inadequate as a matter of procedural fairness.

## Decision

- The First Circuit denied the petitions for review and left the 2004 rules in effect.
- The court held the new hearing procedures complied with the relevant APA provisions governing formal adjudication.
- The court concluded the NRC provided an adequate explanation for changing from its prior, more formal approach.
- The court rejected the petitioners’ fairness and due-process objections, finding the retained safeguards sufficient.

## Legal Principles

- Even where a statute triggers APA formal adjudication requirements, agencies retain discretion over procedural details, so long as the core statutory and APA safeguards are satisfied.
- APA formal adjudication does not itself guarantee traditional civil-trial tools (such as broad discovery or cross-examination as of right); limits may be permitted when adequate alternatives and case-specific controls remain.
- An agency may depart from long-standing procedural practice if it stays within statutory bounds and offers a reasoned explanation supported by the administrative record.
- Under arbitrary-and-capricious review, courts look for a rational connection between the agency’s stated objectives (such as efficiency and resource allocation) and the procedural means adopted.
- Streamlined adjudicatory procedures may satisfy constitutional requirements when they preserve meaningful notice and participation mechanisms and provide for targeted fact-testing where needed.

## Conclusion

The First Circuit upheld the NRC’s 2004 procedural reforms for reactor licensing hearings, concluding that the Atomic Energy Act and the APA permitted the NRC to streamline discovery and cross-examination, and that the agency’s efficiency-based rationale and retained safeguards adequately justified the change.


Citizens Awareness Network, Inc. v. United States, 391 F.3d 338 (1st Cir. 2004)