Nuclear Energy Institute, Inc. v. E.P.A.
| Decision Date | 09 July 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. 02-1116.,No. 01-1258.,No. 03-1009.,No. 01-1268.,No. 01-1516.,No. 01-1426.,No. 01-1295.,No. 02-1179.,No. 01-1425.,No. 02-1036.,No. 02-1077.,No. 03-1058.,No. 02-1196.,01-1258.,01-1268.,01-1295.,01-1425.,01-1426.,01-1516.,02-1036.,02-1077.,02-1116.,02-1179.,02-1196.,03-1009.,03-1058. |
| Citation | 373 F.3d 1251 |
| Parties | NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE, INC., Petitioner v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Antonio Rossmann, Geoffrey Fettus, Martin G. Malsch, Charles J. Cooper, and Joseph R. Egan argued the causes for petitioners State of Nevada and Natural Resources Defense Council, et al. With them on the briefs were Roger B. Moore, Charles J. Fitzpatrick, Howard K. Shapar, Brian Sandoval, Attorney General, Attorney General's Office of the State of Nevada, Marta A. Adams, Senior Deputy Attorney General, Robert J. Cynkar, Brian S. Koukoutchos, Vincent J. Colatriano, and William H. Briggs Jr.
John C. Martin argued the cause for petitioner Nuclear Energy Institute, Inc. With him on the briefs were Jean V. MacHarg, Susan M. Mathiascheck, Robert W. Bishop, and Michael A. Bauser.
Christopher S. Vaden, Michele L. Walter, and Ronald M. Spritzer, Attorneys, U.S. Department of Justice, and Steven F. Crockett, Special Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, argued the causes for respondents. With them on the briefs were Jeffrey B. Clark, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, G. Scott Williams, John A. Bryson, and Greer S. Goldman, Attorneys, Karen D. Cyr, General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, John F. Cordes Jr., Solicitor, E. Leo Slaggie, Deputy Solicitor, and Marc Johnson, Deputy General Counsel, U.S. Department of Energy. John C. Cruden, Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, and Elizabeth A. Peterson, Attorney, entered an appearance.
Michael A. Bauser argued the cause for intervenor Nuclear Energy Institute, Inc. With him on the briefs of intervenor/amicus Nuclear Energy Institute, Inc. and amicus National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners were Robert W. Bishop, James Bradford Ramsay, and Sharla M. Barklind.
Before: EDWARDS, HENDERSON, and TATEL, Circuit Judges.
Opinion for the Court filed Per Curiam.**
Having the capacity to outlast human civilization as we know it and the potential to devastate public health and the environment, nuclear waste has vexed scientists, Congress, and regulatory agencies for the last half-century. After rejecting disposal options ranging from burying nuclear waste in polar ice caps to rocketing it to the sun, the scientific consensus has settled on deep geologic burial as the safest way to isolate this toxic material in perpetuity. Following years of legislative wrangling and agency deliberation, the political consensus has now selected Yucca Mountain, Nevada as the nation's nuclear waste disposal site.
In this case, we consider challenges by the State of Nevada, local communities, several environmental organizations, and the nuclear energy industry to the statutory and regulatory scheme devised to establish and govern a Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository. Petitioners challenge regulations issued by the three agencies with responsibility for the site: the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission), and the Department of Energy (DOE). Petitioners also challenge the constitutionality of the joint resolution through which Congress selected Yucca Mountain as the repository site, as well as certain actions of the President and Energy Secretary leading to approval of the Yucca site.
We conclude: (1) The 10,000-year compliance period selected by EPA violates section 801 of the Energy Policy Act (EnPA) because it is not, as EnPA requires, "based upon and consistent with" the findings and recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences. The remaining challenges to the EPA regulation are without merit. (2) The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's licensing requirements are neither unlawful nor arbitrary and capricious except to the extent that they incorporate EPA's 10,000-year compliance period. (3) The congressional resolution selecting the Yucca site for development represents an appropriate exercise of Congress's Article IV, section 3 authority over federal property. (4) The Department of Energy's and the President's actions leading to the selection of the Yucca Mountain site are unreviewable. All but one of Nevada's challenges to these actions are moot, and the remaining challenge is unripe. Accordingly, we vacate the EPA and NRC regulations insofar as they include a 10,000-year compliance period. We deny or dismiss the remaining petitions for review.
Since the dawn of the atomic age, the United States has used nuclear fission to generate electricity. Today, approximately twenty percent of the nation's electricity comes from nuclear power. See Recommendation by the Secretary of Energy Regarding the Suitability of the Yucca Mountain Site for a Repository Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 at 1 (Feb. 2002), available at http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/ymp/sr/sar.pdf [hereinafter "Secretary's Recommendation"]. Although nuclear power burns without emitting harmful greenhouse gases, it produces a potentially deadly and long-lasting byproduct: highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel.
At massive levels, radiation exposure can cause sudden death. National Institutes of Health, Fact Sheet: What We Know About Radiation, at http:// www.nih.gov/health/chip/od/radiation (last visited May 28, 2004). At lower doses, radiation can have devastating health effects, including increased cancer risks and serious birth defects such as mental retardation, eye malformations, and small brain or head size. See Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Yucca Mountain, Nevada, 64 Fed. Reg. 46,976, 46,978 (Aug. 27, 1999).
Radioactive waste and its harmful consequences persist for time spans seemingly beyond human comprehension. For example, iodine-129, one of the radionuclides expected to be buried at Yucca Mountain, has a half-life of seventeen million years. See COMM. ON TECHNICAL BASES FOR YUCCA MOUNTAIN STANDARDS, NAT'L RESEARCH COUNCIL, TECHNICAL BASES FOR YUCCA MOUNTAIN STANDARDS 18-19 (1995) [hereinafter "NAS REPORT"]. Neptunium-237, also expected to be deposited in Yucca Mountain, has a half-life of over two million years. Id. at 19.
As of 2003, nuclear reactors in the United States had generated approximately 49,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel. See Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, Fact Sheet, Nuclear Waste Explained: How Much Nuclear Waste is in the United States, at http:// www.ocrwm.doe.gov/ymp/about/howmuch/shtml (last visited June 1, 2004) [hereinafter "How Much Nuclear Waste Is in the United States"]. Most of this waste is currently stored at reactor sites across the country. See United States Environmental Protection Agency, Public Health and Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Yucca...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Oceana, Inc. v. Evans
...are not sufficient to doom the model. A recent case from the D.C. Circuit is instructive in this regard. In Nuclear Energy Institute, Inc. v. EPA, 373 F.3d 1251 (D.C.Cir.2004), the D.C. Circuit considered the EPA's decision to designate a point eighteen kilometers south of the Yucca Mountai......
-
Banner Health v. Burwell
...the proposition that arguments must be raised before an agency before they can be raised in court. See, e.g., Nuclear Energy Inst., Inc., v. EPA, 373 F.3d 1251, 1298 (D.C.Cir.2004). But those cases do not tell the whole story. Even where a party has waived its opportunity to pursue facial r......
-
Bauer v. Devos, Civil Action No. 17-1330 (RDM)
...n.3, 104 S.Ct. 656, 78 L.Ed.2d 496 (1984) ; Belizan v. Hershon , 495 F.3d 686, 689, 694 (D.C. Cir. 2007) ; Nuclear Energy Inst., Inc. v. EPA , 373 F.3d 1251, 1266 (D.C. Cir. 2004) ; cf. Pub. Citizen, Inc. v. Nat'l Highway Traffic Safety Admin. , 489 F.3d 1279, 1286, 1297 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (d......
-
Western Shoshone Nat. Council v. U.S., No. 5-05-0290-PMP LRL.
...and, to that end, set forth procedures for the selection and operation of geologic repositories. Nuclear Energy Inst., Inc. v. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 373 F.3d 1251, 1258-61 (D.C.Cir.2004). The Act assigned to the Department of Energy ("DOE") the tasks of selecting, designing, and operating a ......
-
Radioactive Mixed Waste
...standards for the potential repository at Yucca Mountain, found at 40 C.F.R. part 197 (see Nuclear Energy Institute, Inc. v. EPA, 373 F.3d 1251 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (vacating part 197 to the extent it incorporates a 10,000-year compliance period)). 39. See U.S. General Accountability Oice, Low-......
-
Undue process: congressional referral and judicial resistance in the Schiavo controversy.
...process). (59.) See generally POSNER, supra note 55, at 563; Scott, supra note 58, at 810. (60.) See Nuclear Energy Inst. v. EPA, 373 F.3d 1251, 1257-62, 1268-73 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (per curiam) (rejecting the agency's 10,000 year compliance period and remanding). (61.) Cf. In re Convergent Te......
-
NRDC's Perspective on the Nuclear Waste Dilemma
...3. NRDC v. Environmental Protection Agency, 824 F.2d 1258, 18 ELR 20088 (1st Cir. 1987). 4. Nuclear Energy Institute, Inc. v. EPA, 373 F.3d 1251 (2004). 5. 2008 Yucca Mountain rule, 73 Fed. Reg. 61255-89. Copyright © 2010 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. reprinted with permissi......
-
Ethical Choices Inside Regulatory Cost-Benefit Analysis
...of alternatives,” etc.). 44. Such reversals are rare, though they do happen. One example is Nuclear Energy Inst., Inc. v. EPA , 373 F.3d 1251, 1266–73 (D.C. Cir. 2004), which addressed the question of the appropriate temporal scope of a regulatory analysis by EPA regarding the impacts of th......