Opinion ID: 786772
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Final Environmental Impact Statement

Text: 221 DOE's Final Environmental Impact Statement was used to support the Secretary's and the President's recommendations of the Yucca site. Insofar as Nevada's instant challenge to the FEIS is intended to reverse the decision to select the Yucca site, the challenge is moot for the reasons stated above. The Resolution approved the site, and no finding that the FEIS is legally defective would change Congress's final and binding decision. Because the FEIS is expected to play a continuing role in decision making related to the Yucca site, however, we clarify the limits of our holding. 222 Section 114(f)(4) of the NWPA provides, in relevant part, that the DOE's FEIS shall, to the extent practicable, be adopted by [NRC] in connection with the issuance by [NRC] of a construction authorization and license for such repository. 42 U.S.C. § 10134(f)(4). To the extent NRC adopts the FEIS, NRC's responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act shall be deemed satisfied and no further consideration shall be required. Id. In addition, DOE is expected to use the FEIS to support one or more future decisions related to Yucca Mountain, including the selection of an alternative for transporting waste to the site. 223 We agree with DOE that any challenge to the FEIS, insofar as it may be adopted in support of a future NRC construction-authorization or licensing decision or used by DOE in support of a future transportation-alternative selection, is not yet ripe for review. In determining ripeness, we assess both the fitness of the issue for judicial decision and the hardship to the parties of withholding court consideration. AT&T Corp. v. FCC, 349 F.3d 692, 699 (D.C.Cir.2003) (quoting Abbott Labs. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 149, 87 S.Ct. 1507, 1515-16, 18 L.Ed.2d 681 (1967)). In examining the fitness of an issue for our consideration, we are primarily concerned with whether the claims raise purely legal questions [that] would ... be presumptively suitable for judicial review, or whether the court and the agency would instead benefit from postponing review until the agency's policy has crystallized through implementation in a concrete factual setting. AT&T Corp., 349 F.3d at 699-700 (quoting Better Gov't Ass'n v. Dep't of State, 780 F.2d 86, 92 (D.C.Cir.1986)). Where an issue is not yet fit for judicial review, we must weigh the benefits of postponing review against the hardship suffered by the petitioner as a result of such delay. See id. at 700. 224 Nevada's substantive claims against the FEIS will not be fit for judicial review until the FEIS is used to support a concrete and final decision. DOE has not yet selected a transportation alternative or sought to use the existing FEIS to support such a decision. We do not yet know whether or to what extent NRC will adopt DOE's FEIS in support of any decision to authorize construction or license the operation of a repository at Yucca. NRC has indicated that it may require that DOE supplement the FEIS, or it may itself supplement the FEIS. See NEPA Review Procedures for Geologic Repositories for High-Level Waste, 53 Fed. Reg. 16,131, 16,142-43 (May 5, 1988) (Proposed Rule); 10 C.F.R. § 51.109(a) (2003). In the face of such uncertainty, it is clear that the relevant agency positions have not yet crystallized. Our review of the FEIS therefore would benefit from postponing consideration until the FEIS has been used to support a specific, concrete, and final decision. See Ohio Forestry Ass'n, Inc. v. Sierra Club, 523 U.S. 726, 733-37, 118 S.Ct. 1665, 1670-72, 140 L.Ed.2d 921 (1998) (withholding consideration of a forest management plan where it was uncertain whether and to what extent the plan would be used to support specific future logging decisions). 225 Turning to the second prong of our ripeness inquiry, we conclude that withholding consideration of Nevada's substantive claims at this time imposes no hardship on Nevada. Nevada itself has not sought immediate review of the FEIS insofar as it may relate to future DOE or NRC decisions. Putting the now-unreviewable site-selection decisions to one side, the effect of the FEIS will not be felt in a concrete way by Nevada until it is used to support some other final decision of DOE or NRC. Nevada may raise its substantive claims against the FEIS if and when NRC or DOE makes such a final decision. Our decision to postpone consideration of Nevada's claims therefore works no hardship on Nevada sufficient to render its claims ripe. See id. at 735, 118 S.Ct. at 1671 (holding that requiring a party to participate in further administrative or judicial proceedings is not a hardship sufficient to outweigh a determination that an issue is unfit for review); AT&T Corp., 349 F.3d at 700 (same). 226 In reaching this conclusion as to hardship, we rely on the assurances of counsel for both NRC and DOE at oral argument that Nevada will be permitted to raise its substantive challenges to the FEIS in any NRC proceeding to decide whether to adopt the FEIS and in any DOE proceeding to select a transportation alternative. Oral Argument Tr. at 149-52, 169-71. It was noted at oral argument that an NRC decision to adopt the FEIS may present special concerns, because NRC is required under the NWPA to adopt the FEIS to the extent practicable. See 42 U.S.C. § 10134(f)(4). In setting forth regulations to govern review of DOE's FEIS, NRC has acknowledged that it would not be practicable to adopt the FEIS unless it meets the standards for an adequate statement under the NEPA and the Council for Environmental Quality's NEPA regulations. See 53 Fed.Reg. at 16,142. We agree. The NWPA's mandate that the FEIS be adopted by NRC to the extent practicable is intended to avoid duplication of the environmental review process. See H.R. REP. NO. 97-491, pt. 1, at 48, 53-54 (1982). But it cannot reasonably be interpreted to permit NRC to premise a construction-authorization or licensing decision upon an EIS that does not meet the substantive requirements of the NEPA or the Council on Environmental Quality's NEPA regulations. See id. at 48 (The Committee intends that throughout the repository development program, the Secretary and other agencies meet the general requirements and the spirit of NEPA. (emphasis added)). 227 NRC's current regulation governing review of DOE applications for construction authorization or licensing of a repository states that adoption of the DOE's FEIS shall be deemed practicable unless: 228 (1) ... The action proposed to be taken by [NRC] differs from the action proposed in the license application submitted by the Secretary of Energy[,] and [t]he difference may significantly affect the quality of the human environment; or (2) Significant and substantial new information or new considerations render such environmental impact statement inadequate. 229 10 C.F.R. § 51.109(c) (2003). The regulation also notes that, if the FEIS is adopted in accordance with this requirement, no further consideration under NEPA or this subpart shall be required. 10 C.F.R. § 51.109(d) (2003). When questioned at oral argument about the meaning of this regulation, Government counsel assured the court that NRC will not construe the new information or new considerations requirement to preclude Nevada from raising substantive claims against the FEIS in administrative proceedings. Oral Argument Tr. at 171. 230 On January 15, 2004, following oral argument, counsel for NRC purported to clarify the Government's position in a letter submitted to the court. Letter from Steven F. Crockett, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Jan. 15, 2004). The letter states that the relevant NRC regulations, including 10 C.F.R. § 51.109(c), affect[] issues that can be raised and litigated at NRC administrative hearings, not issues that can be raised on judicial review. Id. The suggested distinction makes no sense. Nevada's claims have not been adjudicated on the merits here and presumably will not have been passed upon by any court prior to the relevant NRC proceedings. The claims thus would certainly raise new considerations with regard to any decision to adopt the FEIS. Moreover, as noted above, any substantive defects in the FEIS clearly would be relevant to the practicability of adopting the FEIS. Government counsel's unequivocal representation to the court during oral argument that Nevada will not be foreclosed from raising substantive claims against the FEIS in administrative proceedings comports with the terms of the regulation and reflects a reasonable and compelling interpretation. Therefore, on the record at hand, there is no reason to assume that the regulation will bar consideration of Nevada's substantive claims in the relevant NRC administrative proceedings.