## Facts

- Envirocare of Utah, Inc. operated a commercial facility licensed to dispose of certain off-site radioactive byproduct material.
- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) granted license amendments to International Uranium (USA) Corp. (IUSA) and Quivira Mining Co., allowing disposal of off-site radioactive waste at their mill tailings impoundments.
- Envirocare sought to intervene and obtain adjudicatory hearings in both amendment proceedings, claiming the amendments would cause competitive and economic harm and that the NRC applied more lenient conditions to its competitors.
- The NRC denied Envirocare intervention and hearings in both matters, concluding that Envirocare’s asserted interests were purely competitive and did not qualify as an “interest” affected under Atomic Energy Act (AEA) § 189(a), and that Envirocare did not meet the NRC’s participation requirements.
- Envirocare filed consolidated petitions for review in the D.C. Circuit challenging the NRC orders.

## Issues

1. Whether an agency must grant an administrative hearing to a petitioner that claims it would satisfy Article III standing and the prudential “zone of interests” test in federal court.
2. Whether “any person whose interest may be affected” in AEA § 189(a) includes a competitor asserting only economic or competitive injury from a licensing amendment.
3. Whether the NRC’s denial of a hearing and intervention on the ground that competitive interests are excluded was lawful.

## Decision

- The D.C. Circuit denied Envirocare’s petitions for review and upheld the NRC’s refusal to grant hearings and intervention.
- The court held that judicial prudential standing doctrines, including the “zone of interests” test, do not constrain an agency’s determination of who may participate in administrative adjudication within the agency’s statutory authority.
- The court accepted as reasonable the NRC’s interpretation of AEA § 189(a) that purely competitive harm is not the kind of “interest” that triggers a mandatory hearing right.
- The court concluded the NRC acted within its authority in excluding competitor challenges based solely on lost business opportunities.

## Legal Principles

- Administrative participation standards are not required to mirror Article III standing or prudential standing limits applied by federal courts.
- Prudential standing requirements (including the “zone of interests” test) are judicially created constraints and are inapplicable as binding rules on agencies acting within their congressionally assigned jurisdiction.
- Under AEA § 189(a), an “interest” warranting a hearing may be reasonably limited to interests tied to the statute’s regulatory aims (such as safety and environmental concerns), and may exclude purely economic or competitive interests.
- Courts will defer to an agency’s reasonable construction of its organic statute in defining the scope of hearing rights and intervention criteria.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the NRC’s denial of competitor intervention, ruling that the NRC was not required to apply judicial standing doctrine to administrative hearings and could reasonably interpret AEA § 189(a) to deny a mandatory hearing when the petitioner asserted only competitive or economic injury.


Envirocare of Utah, Inc. v. Nuclear Regul. Comm’n, 194 F.3d 72 (D.C. Cir. 1999)