Opinion ID: 461081
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Review of the site characterization Guidelines.

Text: 30 Apart from the question whether the statute authorizes funding for pre-site characterization activities, both parties petition us to decide whether the Guidelines are consistent with the statutory scheme of funding available after a state has reached the site characterization stage. Before deciding this issue, however, we must determine whether Nevada has standing and whether the issue is ripe for adjudication. 31
32 Nevada arguably lacks standing to contest the Guidelines governing the site characterization phase because 1) Nevada has not yet entered the site characterization stage, and 2) the Secretary may never even recommend the Yucca Mountain site in Nevada for site characterization. On the other hand, DOE has already denied funding for Nevada's proposed FY 1985 studies, by first categorizing those studies as Phase III site characterization studies, and then applying the Phase III Guidelines to deny funding. Thus, Nevada has suffered some actual or threatened injury as a direct result of DOE's own application of the Phase III Guidelines. See Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 472, 102 S.Ct. 752, 758, 70 L.Ed.2d 700 (1982). It would be disingenuous for DOE to argue that Nevada lacks standing to challenge the very guidelines that DOE has chosen to apply to Nevada. 33 Because Nevada has alleged personal injury that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief, see, e.g., Allen v. Wright, --- U.S. ----, 104 S.Ct. 3315, 3325, 82 L.Ed.2d 556 (1984); Price v. State of Hawaii, 764 F.2d 623, 630 (9th Cir.1985), the state has standing to challenge DOE's Phase III site characterization Guidelines. 34
35 Similar reasoning indicates that Nevada's challenge is ripe for adjudication. The basic rationale of the ripeness doctrine is to prevent courts from entangling themselves in abstract disagreements over administrative policies, and also to protect the agencies from judicial interference until an administrative decision has been formalized and its effects felt in a concrete way by the challenging parties. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Comm'n, 461 U.S. 190, 200, 103 S.Ct. 1713, 1720, 75 L.Ed.2d 752 (1983) (quoting Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 148-49, 87 S.Ct. 1507, 1515, 18 L.Ed.2d 681 (1967)). The question of ripeness turns on  'the fitness of the issues for judicial decision' and 'the hardship to the parties of withholding court consideration.'  461 U.S. at 201, 103 S.Ct. at 1720 (quoting Abbott Laboratories, 387 U.S. at 149, 87 S.Ct. at 1515). 36 Consistent with the trend in favor of reviewing even policy statements and informal positions, letters, or announcements, see 4 K. Davis, Administrative Law Treatise Sec. 25.16 at 411 (2d ed. 1983), we will review the challenge to DOE's Guidelines. The validity of the Phase III Guidelines is a purely legal issue involving a reading of congressional intent rather than complex factual questions. See Pacific Gas, 461 U.S. at 201, 103 S.Ct. at 1720; Abbott Laboratories, 387 U.S. at 149, 87 S.Ct. at 1515. Second, the Guidelines bear hallmarks of finality, an element of ripeness that the Supreme Court has viewed in a pragmatic way. Abbott Laboratories, 387 U.S. at 149, 87 S.Ct. at 1516. While not formally adopted by DOE under the Administrative Procedure Act, the Guidelines were issued in both draft and revised form to all relevant states and Indian tribes, and in DOE's own words, express the administrative construction of the NWPA that subsequently formed the basis for DOE's partial denial of Nevada's grant request. Compare with Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. Secs. 551(4), (13) (agency action includes an agency statement of general or particular applicability and future effect designed to implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy) (cited in Abbott Laboratories, 387 U.S. at 149, 87 S.Ct. at 1516). Because the Guidelines by their own terms are intended to assist field offices by establishing a single framework within which grants can be negotiated and awarded, (emphasis added), they can be viewed as a definitive statement of the agency's position. See Air California v. United States Dept. of Transp., 654 F.2d 616, 620 (9th Cir.1981). 37 Even if the Guidelines are viewed as a statement only of [DOE's] intentions, they are eligible for review. See, e.g., Abbott Laboratories, 387 U.S. at 150, 87 S.Ct. at 1516, citing Columbia Broadcasting System v. United States, 316 U.S. 407, 418-19, 62 S.Ct. 1194, 1201, 86 L.Ed. 1563 (1942); K. Davis, supra, at Sec. 25.15 (collecting cases). Their effect on the state's testing activities is direct and immediate, see Air California, 654 F.2d at 621, discouraging the state from embarking on the lengthy and detailed independent site studies that would allow it to fully evaluate DOE's conclusions. The state must therefore choose now between disadvantageous compliance and risking sanctions, K. Davis, supra, at Sec. 25.13; see Abbott Laboratories, 387 U.S. at 152, 87 S.Ct. at 1517--either to restrict its testing to those forms which would be funded under the Guidelines even though its evaluation of DOE's studies would thereby be impaired, or to perform such testing at its own expense. Resolution of the Guidelines now will foster, rather than impede, effective administration of the Fund by DOE, see State of Texas v. United States Department of Energy, 764 F.2d 278, 283 (5th Cir.1985), since DOE's decision to fund the states' ongoing budget requests will necessarily be controlled by the challenged Guidelines. 38 In sum, although Nevada has not yet entered the site characterization stage, it has already suffered a direct and immediate injury from DOE's application of its formal, final Guidelines. Furthermore, because DOE has indicated in both its draft environmental assessments and in public statements that Nevada's Yucca Mountain site is likely to top the list of sites recommended for site characterization in fall of 1985, a challenge to those Guidelines is ripe for review. 39
40 Nevada challenges two clauses in the Guidelines. These declare that duplication of data collection efforts and associated activities should be minimized to the maximum extent practicable and avoided if at all possible, and that Nevada may receive funding to run independent tests on DOE data, where the need for such independent testing can be justified. The first clause minimizes primary data collection by the state; the second clause requires DOE approval before a state may obtain funding for any tests--even though those tests are confined to primary data already collected by DOE. 41 This interpretation of a state's statutory rights is unduly restrictive. Section 116(c)(1)(B)'s mandatory language provides that the Secretary shall make grants to each state ... to engage in any monitoring, testing, or evaluation activities with respect to site characterization. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 10136(c)(1)(B) (emphasis added). As the legislative history indicates, these grants extend[ ] to all activities undertaken under this subtitle, H.R.Rep. No. 785, 97th Cong., 2d Sess. 72 (1982); the House reports impose no limitation on the state's funding of the type adopted in the Guidelines. See H.R.Rep. No. 491, Pt. 1, 97th Cong., 2d Sess. 55 (1982), reprinted in 1982 U.S.Code Cong. & Ad.News 3792, 3821. See also Sec. 117(c)(8), 42 U.S.C. Sec. 10137(c)(8) (state may conduct reasonable independent monitoring and testing of activities on the repository site pursuant to a written agreement during the site characterization stage). 42 By minimizing independent collection of primary data, and then restricting state tests of primary data that DOE has collected, the Phase III Guidelines eviscerate the independent oversight role that Congress envisioned for the states. Permitting DOE to guard the chicken coop alone would violate the statutory finding that state participation and oversight of DOE is essential in order to promote public confidence in the safety of disposal of [nuclear] waste. Sec. 111(a)(6), 42 U.S.C. Sec. 10131(a)(6). 43 The Secretary's construction of Sec. 116(c)(1)(B) is inconsistent with the statutory mandate and a frustration of congressional policy. See Louisiana-Pacific Corp., 754 F.2d at 1447. Consistent with its duties under a consultation-cooperation agreement, see Sec. 117(b) & (c)(8), 42 U.S.C. Sec. 10137(b) & (c)(8), DOE must fund relevant site characterization activities which are reasonable, scientifically justifiable, and performed by demonstrably competent contractors, and which would not unreasonably interfere with or delay DOE's own activities. 44