Opinion ID: 786772
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Reviewability of DOE's Peak Dose Calculations

Text: 173 Nevada next challenges NRC's decision to require DOE to calculate the peak dose of the reasonably maximally exposed individual that would occur after 10,000 years following disposal but within the period of geologic stability, 10 C.F.R. § 63.341, while categorically prohibiting any challenge to the calculation during the upcoming licensing hearing on the Yucca Mountain repository. See Petitioners' Br. at 57-65. Nevada bases this claim, not surprisingly, on NRC's statement to this effect in the Supplemental Information accompanying part 63: [T]here is no finding that the NRC must make with respect to these peak dose calculations nor may they be the subject of litigation in any NRC licensing proceedings for a repository at Yucca Mountain. 66 Fed. Reg. at 55,760. Nevada contends that, in so providing, NRC violated the NWPA, see 42 U.S.C. § 10134(f)(4), the AEA, see id. § 2077(c), the NEPA, see id. § 4332(2)(C), and its own regulations promulgated thereunder, see 10 C.F.R. § 51.109(a)(2), as well as our precedent, see Union of Concerned Scientists v. NRC, 735 F.2d 1437 (D.C.Cir.1984), cert. denied sub nom. Ark. Power & Light Co. v. Union of Concerned Scientists, 469 U.S. 1132, 105 S.Ct. 815, 83 L.Ed.2d 808 (1985). While NRC intimates that Nevada waived the argument by failing to raise it during NRC's rulemaking proceedings, NRC has plainly, and wisely, retreated from its position that DOE's peak dose calculations are unassailable. 174 In its brief NRC states that parties to the future proceedings on the Yucca Mountain repository will be permitted to challenge DOE's peak dose calculations under certain circumstances. Respondent's Br. at 44-45. While NRC correctly points out that it is obligated under the NWPA to adopt DOE's environmental impact statement (EIS) to the extent practicable, 42 U.S.C. § 10134(f)(4), it concedes that it has imposed no `categorical' limitation on any challenge to DOE's peak dose calculations and that, under its regulations, parties to the proceeding may challenge the practicability of adopting aspects of DOE's EIS, including the peak dose calculations, based on substantial new information to the contrary. Respondent's Br. at 44; see also 10 C.F.R. § 51.109(c)(2) (adoption practicable unless, inter alia, [s]ignificant and substantial new information or new considerations render such [EIS] inadequate); id. at § 63.341 (DOE must include the results and their bases in the [EIS] for Yucca Mountain). NRC has, in fact, abandoned the statement in the Supplemental Information that provides the sole footing for Nevada's argument. See Respondent's Br. at 45. It explains that the challenged statement is not part of the rule itself and must be construed in a manner consistent with NRC regulations — namely, the ones expressly allowing parties to the proceeding to challenge DOE's dose calculations as part of a challenge to the practicability of adopting DOE's EIS. Respondent's Br. at 45 (citing 10 C.F.R. §§ 51.109, 63.341). NRC's volte face apparently satisfies Nevada, see Petitioners' Reply Br. at 29, and we need not treat it further.