## Facts

- Kerr-McGee operated a thorium-processing facility in West Chicago from 1967–1973, leaving substantial radioactive contamination, including contaminated soil, tailings, and rubble.
- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued a license amendment (Amendment No. 3) authorizing (1) demolition of six buildings at the facility and (2) receipt and on-site storage of contaminated material previously removed and used as landfill.
- The City of West Chicago sought a formal, trial-type hearing on the amendment and challenged the amendment on safety and environmental grounds, including under NEPA.
- The NRC provided notice, accepted the City’s written submissions, addressed the City’s contentions in its order, denied a formal trial-type hearing, and issued Amendment No. 3 as a final agency order.
- The City filed (1) a petition for direct appellate review of the NRC’s final order and (2) a district court action seeking injunctive/mandamus relief attacking the same licensing action; the district court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

## Issues

1. Whether § 189(a) of the Atomic Energy Act and the APA required the NRC to provide a formal, on-the-record trial-type hearing before issuing the license amendment.
2. Whether the NRC’s written-submission process satisfied due process and applicable agency procedures for a requested “hearing” on a license amendment.
3. Whether NEPA required a separate environmental impact statement for Amendment No. 3 and whether the NRC’s environmental review was arbitrary or capricious.
4. Whether the NRC’s technical and safety determinations supporting the amendment were arbitrary, capricious, or unsupported by the administrative record.
5. Whether the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction to review or enjoin the NRC’s licensing action, or whether exclusive review lay in the court of appeals.

## Decision

- The court upheld the NRC’s final order granting Amendment No. 3 and denying a formal trial-type hearing.
- The court held that § 189(a)’s requirement of a “hearing” did not, without clear congressional direction, require an APA formal adjudicatory hearing; the NRC could use informal procedures.
- The court found the NRC’s process (notice plus opportunity for written submissions and a reasoned response) provided adequate process and complied with the governing statutes and regulations.
- The court rejected the NEPA challenge, concluding the NRC reasonably determined that a separate EIS for the amendment was unnecessary and that the City had a meaningful opportunity to comment.
- The court rejected claims that the order was arbitrary or capricious or unsupported by the record, deferring to the NRC’s technical judgments.
- The court affirmed the district court’s dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because final NRC orders are reviewable exclusively in the courts of appeals; broader complaints about decommissioning timing were not ripe.

## Legal Principles

- A statutory requirement that an agency provide a “hearing” does not automatically trigger APA formal, on-the-record adjudication; absent clear congressional intent, an agency may satisfy the hearing requirement through informal procedures.
- Due process in administrative licensing may be satisfied by notice and a meaningful opportunity to submit written evidence and argument, followed by an agency decision addressing the material contentions.
- Under NEPA, an agency may determine that an incremental licensing action does not require a separate EIS when the agency evaluates environmental effects and rationally explains its determination within the broader environmental review context.
- Courts review NRC licensing decisions under deferential administrative-law standards and generally uphold technical judgments supported by the administrative record.
- Challenges to final NRC licensing orders must proceed through the statutory direct-review scheme in the court of appeals; district courts lack jurisdiction over suits that function as review of such final orders.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit sustained the NRC’s license amendment authorizing limited demolition and on-site storage at a contaminated thorium-processing site, holding that the Atomic Energy Act required only an informal hearing process, that NEPA did not compel a separate EIS for the amendment on the record presented, and that exclusive judicial review of final NRC licensing orders lies in the court of appeals rather than the district court.


City of W. Chi., Ill. v. U.S. Nuclear Regul. Comm'n, 701 F.2d 632 (7th Cir. 1983)