RYMER, Circuit Judge:
This case involves Department of Energy (DOE) Order 435.1, together with its Manual and Implementation Guide, which provide (among other things) a process for determining whether certain radioactive waste streams are “waste incidental to reprocessing” that are not considered “high-level waste.” The Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. and the Snake River Alliance (collectively, NRDC) filed a petition for review in this court to set aside DOE Order 435.1. NRDC contends that the evaluation method adopted in the Order, Manual and Guide redefines “high-level radioactive waste” as low-level or transuranic waste, contrary to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA), 42 U.S.C. § 10101(12),
and allows DOE, rath
er than the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), to determine whether to leave this reprocessing waste in nuclear waste storage tanks at DOE’s Hanford Reservation, Savannah River, and Idaho National Engineering Laboratory sites.
As NRDC invokes our original jurisdiction pursuant to NWPA, 42 U.S.C. § 10139(a), we must first decide whether this is an agency decision over which § 10139(a) confers original and exclusive jurisdiction in the courts of appeals. NWPA’s judicial review provisions are not a model of clarity. However, we conclude that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because DOE Order 435.1 pertains to management of radioactive waste at federal defense facilities and is not a decision “under” NWPA. Accordingly, we shall transfer this petition to the district court for the District of Idaho.
r
NRDC submits that review of DOE Order 435.1 falls within § 10139(a)(1)(A). Section 10139(a) is NWPA’s provision for judicial review, and subsection (1)(A) states:
... the United States courts of appeals shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction over any civil action—
(A) for review of any final decision or action of the Secretary, the President, or the Commission under this part; ...
“This part” — Part A of Subchapter I — of NWPA is entitled “Repositories for Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Waste and Spent Nuclear Fuel.” Subchapter I is captioned “Disposal and Storage of High-Level Radioactive Waste, Spent Nuclear Fuel and Low-Level Radioactive Waste.” Part A establishes procedures for disposal of high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel in repositories, now sited solely at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.
See Nevada v. Department Of Energy,
133 F.3d 1201,1203 (9th Cir.1998). The purposes of “this part” are to establish a schedule for siting, constructing and operating repositories; to establish the federal responsibility for disposal of civilian waste and spent fuel; to define the relationship between the federal government and state governments with respect to disposal of such waste and spent fuel; and to establish a Nuclear Waste Fund, composed of payments made by generators and owners of such waste. 42 U.S.C. § 10131(b). Han-ford, Savannah and the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory are federal facilities where high-level waste is generated and stored; they pre-date NWPA, and are not repositories. For these reasons, DOE maintains that NWPA does not govern its waste management decisions at these in
stallations; thus, DOE Order 431.5 is not a decision under NWPA that is subject to judicial review within this court’s original jurisdiction.
“In the NWPA, Congress created a comprehensive scheme for the interim storage and permanent disposal of high-level radioactive waste generated by civilian nuclear power plants.”
Indiana Michigan Power Co. v. Department of Energy,
88 F.3d 1272, 1273 (D.C.Cir.1996). Section 10107(a) provides that NWPA does not apply to any atomic energy defense activity or facility.
NRDC acknowledges that NWPA does not require defense high-level waste to be disposed in a repository, but points out that it does require the President to evaluate potential methods for disposing of such waste. 42 U.S.C. § 10107(b)(1). Because the President determined on April 30, 1985, that a separate facility was not necessary for defense high-level waste, NRDC notes that DOE only has authority for disposal of defense high-level wastes at Yucca Mountain.
While this may be trae, DOE Order 435.1 addresses management of wastes at DOE facilities. The authority to do so comes from the Atomic Energy Act (AEA), 42 U.S.C. § 2151
et seq.;
the Energy Reorganization Act (ERA), Pub.L. No. 98-438, 88 Stat. 1233,
codified at
42 U.S.C. § 5801
et seq.;
and the Department of Energy Organization Act (DEO), Pub.L. No. 95-91, 91 Stat. 565,
codified at
42 U.S.C. § 7101
et seq.
The AEA, enacted in 1954, established a comprehensive regulatory scheme for military and domestic nuclear energy. It authorized the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) — now DOE and NRC — to establish instructions by rule, regulation, or order, governing possession and use of nuclear material
and the operation of facilities used in conducting its activities.
When the AEC was abolished in 1974, its functions were transferred to the Energy Research and Development Agency (ERDA), DOE’s predecessor agency, and to the NRC.
See
Energy Reorganization Act of 1974(ERA), Pub.L. No. 93-438 §§ 104, 201, 88 Stat. 1233, 1237-38, 1242-44,
codi
fied at
42 U.S.C. § 5814. Under the ERA, NRC was given commercial licensing and related regulatory functions; the ERDA took over the rest of AEC’s functions, except that the NRC must license ERDA facilities that are authorized for “subsequent long-term storage of high-level radioactive waste generated by the Administration.” 42 U.S.C. § 5842.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
RYMER, Circuit Judge:
This case involves Department of Energy (DOE) Order 435.1, together with its Manual and Implementation Guide, which provide (among other things) a process for determining whether certain radioactive waste streams are “waste incidental to reprocessing” that are not considered “high-level waste.” The Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. and the Snake River Alliance (collectively, NRDC) filed a petition for review in this court to set aside DOE Order 435.1. NRDC contends that the evaluation method adopted in the Order, Manual and Guide redefines “high-level radioactive waste” as low-level or transuranic waste, contrary to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA), 42 U.S.C. § 10101(12),
and allows DOE, rath
er than the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), to determine whether to leave this reprocessing waste in nuclear waste storage tanks at DOE’s Hanford Reservation, Savannah River, and Idaho National Engineering Laboratory sites.
As NRDC invokes our original jurisdiction pursuant to NWPA, 42 U.S.C. § 10139(a), we must first decide whether this is an agency decision over which § 10139(a) confers original and exclusive jurisdiction in the courts of appeals. NWPA’s judicial review provisions are not a model of clarity. However, we conclude that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because DOE Order 435.1 pertains to management of radioactive waste at federal defense facilities and is not a decision “under” NWPA. Accordingly, we shall transfer this petition to the district court for the District of Idaho.
r
NRDC submits that review of DOE Order 435.1 falls within § 10139(a)(1)(A). Section 10139(a) is NWPA’s provision for judicial review, and subsection (1)(A) states:
... the United States courts of appeals shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction over any civil action—
(A) for review of any final decision or action of the Secretary, the President, or the Commission under this part; ...
“This part” — Part A of Subchapter I — of NWPA is entitled “Repositories for Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Waste and Spent Nuclear Fuel.” Subchapter I is captioned “Disposal and Storage of High-Level Radioactive Waste, Spent Nuclear Fuel and Low-Level Radioactive Waste.” Part A establishes procedures for disposal of high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel in repositories, now sited solely at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.
See Nevada v. Department Of Energy,
133 F.3d 1201,1203 (9th Cir.1998). The purposes of “this part” are to establish a schedule for siting, constructing and operating repositories; to establish the federal responsibility for disposal of civilian waste and spent fuel; to define the relationship between the federal government and state governments with respect to disposal of such waste and spent fuel; and to establish a Nuclear Waste Fund, composed of payments made by generators and owners of such waste. 42 U.S.C. § 10131(b). Han-ford, Savannah and the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory are federal facilities where high-level waste is generated and stored; they pre-date NWPA, and are not repositories. For these reasons, DOE maintains that NWPA does not govern its waste management decisions at these in
stallations; thus, DOE Order 431.5 is not a decision under NWPA that is subject to judicial review within this court’s original jurisdiction.
“In the NWPA, Congress created a comprehensive scheme for the interim storage and permanent disposal of high-level radioactive waste generated by civilian nuclear power plants.”
Indiana Michigan Power Co. v. Department of Energy,
88 F.3d 1272, 1273 (D.C.Cir.1996). Section 10107(a) provides that NWPA does not apply to any atomic energy defense activity or facility.
NRDC acknowledges that NWPA does not require defense high-level waste to be disposed in a repository, but points out that it does require the President to evaluate potential methods for disposing of such waste. 42 U.S.C. § 10107(b)(1). Because the President determined on April 30, 1985, that a separate facility was not necessary for defense high-level waste, NRDC notes that DOE only has authority for disposal of defense high-level wastes at Yucca Mountain.
While this may be trae, DOE Order 435.1 addresses management of wastes at DOE facilities. The authority to do so comes from the Atomic Energy Act (AEA), 42 U.S.C. § 2151
et seq.;
the Energy Reorganization Act (ERA), Pub.L. No. 98-438, 88 Stat. 1233,
codified at
42 U.S.C. § 5801
et seq.;
and the Department of Energy Organization Act (DEO), Pub.L. No. 95-91, 91 Stat. 565,
codified at
42 U.S.C. § 7101
et seq.
The AEA, enacted in 1954, established a comprehensive regulatory scheme for military and domestic nuclear energy. It authorized the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) — now DOE and NRC — to establish instructions by rule, regulation, or order, governing possession and use of nuclear material
and the operation of facilities used in conducting its activities.
When the AEC was abolished in 1974, its functions were transferred to the Energy Research and Development Agency (ERDA), DOE’s predecessor agency, and to the NRC.
See
Energy Reorganization Act of 1974(ERA), Pub.L. No. 93-438 §§ 104, 201, 88 Stat. 1233, 1237-38, 1242-44,
codi
fied at
42 U.S.C. § 5814. Under the ERA, NRC was given commercial licensing and related regulatory functions; the ERDA took over the rest of AEC’s functions, except that the NRC must license ERDA facilities that are authorized for “subsequent long-term storage of high-level radioactive waste generated by the Administration.” 42 U.S.C. § 5842. As the Senate Committee explained, “[i]t is not the intent of the committee to require licensing of such storage facilities which are already in existence ...” S.Rep.No. 93-980, 93d Cong., 2d sess.,
reprinted in
1974 U.S.C.C.A.N 5520-21;
see also Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
606 F.2d 1261, 1267 (D.C.Cir.1979). In 1977, Congress abolished ERDA and transferred its functions to DOE.
See
DEO, § 301(a), Pub.L. No. 95-91, 91 Stat. 565, 577-78 (1977),
codified at
42 U.S.C. § 7151(a). This left control over existing government facilities and defense nuclear waste in DOE.
See
42 U.S.C. § 7133(a)(8)(A), (B), (C), and (E).
DOE Order 435.1 was promulgated in accordance with the AEA to replace a previous DOE Order on Radioactive Waste Management, DOE O 5820.2A, and applies to the management of all high-level waste, transuranie waste, and low-level waste for which DOE is responsible. It is not a decision about the siting of a repository, establishing federal responsibility for disposal of civilian radioactive waste, defining the relationship between the federal government and state governments with respect to disposal of such waste‘and spent fuel, or establishing a Nuclear Waste Fund under Part A of Subchapter I of NWPA.
See
42 U.S.C. § 10131(b). Nor is DOE Order 435.1 a decision under any other Part of Subchapter I, or of any other Subchapter of NWPA.
Therefore, this action does not seek review of any decision that is directly “under this part.”
NRDC does not argue otherwise; rather, it posits that the Manual and Guide accompanying DOE Order 435.1 state that all high-level waste must be disposed pursuant to the NWPA. The Manual provides that “[disposal of high-level waste must be in accordance with the provisions of the
Atomic Energy Act of 1951,
as amended, the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act .of 1982,
as amended, or any other applicable statutes.” DOE M 435.1-1 at 11-12. The Guide observes that “[b]ackground and knowledge of both the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982,
as amended, definition and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission definition, at 10 CFR Part 60, is needed to ensure that waste that is to be managed as
high-level waste has been properly characterized to be high-level waste.” DOE G 435.1-1 at II — 1. From these statements NRDC infers that the NWPA is necessarily implicated whenever high-level waste is disposed, and the AEA does not exclusively control DOE’s disposal of defense high-level waste.
Whether or not this is so, it does not follow that DOE was making a decision “under [Part A]” of NWPA for purposes of this court’s original jurisdiction over NRDC’s action. NWPA — like any other authority — can be implicated by a decision that is not “under” it for purposes of subject matter jurisdiction.
NRDC also points to NWPA’s overarching purpose of establishing federal policy for safely disposing of all high-level wastes, 42 U.S.C. § 10131(a),
and contends that NWPA should be broadly construed to enfold any kind of disposal of high-level waste. In its view, this would bring the order’s incidental waste process under the jurisdiction of the Act because no matter what it is called, the waste continues to be “waste resulting from reprocessing” that must be disposed in accordance with NWPA. NRDC further suggests that reading the judicial review provision in NWPA to apply to the entire Act, as the court did in
General Electric Uranium Management Corp. v. Department of Energy,
764 F.2d 896 (D.C.Cir.1985), compels us to take jurisdiction of this case. We disagree.
General Electric
arose in the quite different context of a DOE rule establishing the basis upon which the agency would compute a fee for fuel spent to generate electricity prior to April 7, 1983. NWPA established a Nuclear Waste Fund and specifically prescribed a one-time fee for electricity generated by spent nuclear fuel. 42 U.S.C. § 10222(a)(3). However, the provision for a one-time fee is not within the same part as the judicial review provision; and the Subchapter of which it is a part itself has no specific review provision. When General Electric challenged the onetime fee set by DOE as contrary to the fee prescribed by Congress in NWPA, the court held that the rule fell within the class of agency actions reviewable under § 10139(a)(1)(A) because it was inconceivable that Congress provided review in the courts of appeals for all of the waste disposal actions identified in the Act,
but not
for questions concerning the composition of the Nuclear Waste Fund and a few other matters located in Subchapter III. Unlike orders with respect to management of waste at existing federal (defense) facilities, some kind of one-time fee rule for civilian generators was clearly contemplated by NWPA and the rule at issue was promulgated pursuant to DOE’s statutory mandate under NWPA. In these circumstances, the court concluded that it was sensible for review to be in the appellate tribunal.
Tennessee v. Herrington,
806 F.2d 642 (6th Cir.1986), presented a similar situation. The State of Tennessee challenged the legality of DOE’s proposal for construction of a monitored retrievable storage facility (MRS) for failure to comply with NWPA’s consultation and cooperation obligations. The MRS, if adopted by Congress, was to serve as a back-up to the repository program to accommodate spent nuclear fuel and high-level' radioactive waste resulting from civilian nuclear activities. 42 U.S.C. § 10161(b)(1). Section 10161 of the Act contains all of the express provisions relating to MRS, but does not expressly state that MRS facilities are subject to the jurisdictional provisions of § 10139(a). The MRS provisions are located in Part C, not Part A of Subchapter I. However, § 10161(h) makes several sections and subsections of Part A applicable to the MRS siting process. These are the NWPA sections upon which Tennessee’s claim was based. In these circumstances, the court agreed with DOE’s contention that, at least to the extent DOE’s conduct is required because of the incorporation of sections found in Part A, actions arising under § 10161(h) are subject to the appellate court’s original jurisdiction. Here, DOE’s definition of “waste incidental to reprocessing” may or may not comport with NWPA’s definition of “high-level waste” in § 10101, but DOE’s conduct is not required by virtue of any section of NWPA linked to Part A.
We recognize the value of concentrating-all actions that contest final DOE decisions under NWPA in the courts of appeals. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit explained this well in
General Electric.
764 F.2d at 903-904. Nevertheless, NWPA’s provision for judicial review is limited to decisions “under” the
part,
or at least under the
Act
when the decision is pursuant to a part of the Act and relates to the purposes of the part in which the judicial review provision is placed.
Because DOE Order 436.1 is not a decision under Part A of Subchapter I or of any other section of NWPA, we lack original or exclusive jurisdiction over this action.
II
NRDC urges us to transfer the action to district court instead of dismissing it if, contrary to the position that NRDC’s believes is correct, we conclude that its challenge is not subject to judicial review under § 10139(a). DOE advances a number of arguments to the contrary, but on balance we believe that transfer is appropriate. In transferring the petition, we express no view, one way or the other, about the remaining jurisdictional and prudential issues raised by the Secretary. We leave issues of standing, ripeness, and of course the merits to the district court.
Although the parties have made no suggestions about a transferee forum, we presume that the District of Idaho is proper, as it is the only district in this circuit where a target plaintiff resides. Therefore, we order the petition transferred to
the District of Idaho.
PETITION TRANSFERRED.