U.S. Court of Appeals Orders the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to Resume Yucca Mountain Licensing Proceeding, Upholding Rule of Law Over Politics

by K&L Gates LLP

On August 13, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit took the rare step of granting a Petition for Writ of Mandamus compelling the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (“NRC”) to resume the licensing proceeding to consider the Department of Energy’s (“DOE”) license application to store nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. [1] This alert describes the events leading up to the Court’s decision, the decision itself, and the decision’s implications unless overturned. [2]

The Nuclear Waste Policy Act (“NWPA”) directed the NRC to consider the DOE’s application and issue a final decision within three years of its submission. [3] That process was due to be completed in June 2011.

The process was halted in 2010 after the Secretary of Energy announced that the President had ordered him to abandon the Yucca Mountain project and withdraw the license application. A prior suit challenging these determinations, and the NRC’s authority to even consider them, was rejected by the Court in July 2011 based on the view that the NRC, and not the President, had the authority to consider halting the process and the NRC had not yet ruled. [4] At the same time, the Court indicated that if the NRC failed to act on the DOE’s license application within the deadlines specified by the NWPA, then mandamus may be appropriate.

A mandamus petition was immediately filed following the Court’s July 2011 decision. [5] By the time of that decision, the NRC’s licensing board had ruled that the DOE did not have the authority to withdraw its application, the three-year period for deciding the license application had expired, and the Chairman of the NRC had ordered that the proceeding be halted. In addition, DOE had shuttered its operations at Yucca Mountain and the NRC did the same with its review of the license application, although millions of dollars remained in appropriations to continue.

On August 3, 2012, after briefing and oral argument, the Court ordered that the mandamus case be held in abeyance until December 14, 2012, to see if Congress would moot the controversy in its upcoming appropriations decisions by adding money to the Yucca Mountain program, taking away existing money, or changing the law. While the petitioners argued that the law should be followed unless changed, the NRC argued that since Congress might change the law, it should not be required to follow it in the meantime. In two opinions accompanying the order holding the case in abeyance, the Court noted that mandamus would likely lie against the NRC for violating a clear statutory mandate to decide the license application if Congress did not take some action clearly indicating that the NWPA was no longer the law.  One member of the panel indicated that mandamus should be issued immediately. [6]

The Court’s August 13, 2013 Mandamus Decision
The Court, in a 2-1 decision, stated:

Since we issued that order more than a year ago on August 3, 2012, the [NRC] has not acted, and Congress has not altered the legal landscape. As things stand, therefore, the [NRC] is simply flouting the law. In light of the Constitutional response owed to Congress, and having fully exhausted alternatives available to us, we now grant the petition for writ of mandamus against the [NRC]. [7]

The Court rejected all of the arguments the NRC put forth to justify its failure to follow the NWPA. First, it rejected the NRC’s argument that it could not proceed with the license proceeding because Congress had not yet appropriated the full amount of funding necessary to complete the entire proceeding. [8] The Court held that “[f]ederal agencies may not ignore statutory mandates simply because Congress has not yet appropriated all of the money necessary to complete a project.” [9] Rather, the Court concluded, the NRC is under a legal obligation to continue the licensing proceeding with the funds available to it - in this case, at least $11.1 million in appropriated funds. [10]

Next, the Court rejected the NRC’s argument that it would be a waste of money to continue the licensing proceeding based on the NRC’s speculation that Congress, in the future, might not appropriate the additional funds necessary to complete the proceeding. [11] The Court said, “an agency may not rely on political guesswork about future congressional appropriations as a basis for violating existing legal mandates.” [12] In fact, the Court recognized that doing so would “gravely upset the balance of powers between the Branches and represent a major and unwarranted expansion of the Executive’s power at the expense of Congress.” [13]

The Court also rejected the NRC’s argument that the failure of Congress to provide future appropriations for the Yucca Mountain project demonstrated congressional intent to shut down the process. [14] The Court explained that “courts generally should not infer that Congress has implicitly repealed or suspended statutory mandates based simply on the amount of money Congress has appropriated.” [15] The Court concluded that, in this case, “where previously appropriated money remained available for an agency to perform a statutorily mandated activity,” there is “no basis for a court to excuse the agency from that statutory mandate.” [16]

The Court further rejected what it saw as an undisputed implication in the record - that the NRC’s (and the Obama administration’s) policy disagreement with Congress over the wisdom of the NWPA is a lawful ground for the NRC to decline to continue with the licensing proceeding. “[T]he President and federal agencies may not ignore statutory mandates or prohibitions merely because of a policy disagreement with Congress.” [17]

The dissent contended that mandamus should not issue because there were insufficient funds to conclude the process and the NRC’s judgment over the wisdom of spending the remaining funds should be given deference. The majority disagreed, finding that significant money remained, and the NRC’s conduct too egregious to overlook:

Our respectful factbound difference with Chief Judge Garland, then, is simply that we believe – especially given the Court’s cautious and incremental approach in prior iterations of this litigation, the significant amount of money available for the [NRC] to continue the licensing process, and the [NRC’s] continued disregard of the law – that the case has by now proceeded to the point where mandamus appropriately must be granted. [18]

The Court concluded its opinion by noting that “[a]t the behest of the [NRC], we have repeatedly gone out of our way over the last several years to defer a mandamus order against the [NRC] and thereby give Congress time to pass new legislation that would clarify this matter if it so wished.” [19] In light of the fact that “Congress has taken no further action on this matter,” the Court held that, at this point, the NRC “is simply defying a law enacted by Congress, and. . . doing so without any legal basis.” [20]

What Does the Court’s Mandamus Decision Mean?
Under the Court’s rules, its order granting mandamus will become effective September 3, 2013 absent issuance of an order or other special direction of the Court to the contrary. [21] The NRC has the right to petition the Court for a stay, rehearing by the panel, and rehearing en banc, and may also file a petition for certiorari to the United States Supreme Court, though the NRC’s burden under any of these options is quite high.

Administratively, the licensing process must be resumed. Regardless of whether it can be fully completed, the NRC acknowledged at oral argument before the Court that it had more than enough resources to issue the key Safety Evaluation Reports that address NRC scientist views on the safety of Yucca Mountain as a permanent waste repository. [22] Releasing those reports may well impact the availability of additional resources from Congress to continue the process. Additionally, given the Court’s decision ordering the NRC to move forward with the licensing proceeding, the prior ruling by the NRC’s Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that DOE did not have the authority to withdraw its application, [23] and the Secretary of Energy’s statements that he will abide by the Court’s order, DOE will presumably cooperate and proceed with the license application review process as required by the NWPA.

Politically, the case moves the debate over whether the current NWPA should be amended back to Congress where it belongs. Nuclear power remains one of the cleanest and most reliable source of baseload energy, and the handling of commercial nuclear waste remains a key issue in the debate over the role nuclear power will play in the country’s future energy mix.

Jurisprudentially, the decision makes it abundantly clear that the Executive Branch, absent constitutional objections, may not choose to ignore implementing a law containing clear and unmistakable requirements unless Congress changes it. Few mandamus cases in the past have presented facts where an agency publicly announced its disagreement with the law and, instead of seeking a legislative change, simply abandoned its obligations to implement it. The opinion represents a reaffirmation of the role that Congress plays in this process and preserves important separation of powers principles. As the Court noted, “[i]t is no overstatement to say that our constitutional system of separation of powers would be significantly altered if we were to allow executive and independent agencies to disregard federal law in the manner asserted in this case by the [NRC].” [24]

[1]Opinion, In re: Aiken Cty., No. 11-1271 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 13, 2013).

[2] K&L Gates represented three of the petitioners in this litigation.

[3] 42 U.S.C. § 10134(d).  The NWPA allowed the NRC to extend the deadline by one year if it issued a written report explaining the reason for the delay and providing an estimated time for completion.  Id. at §§ 10134(d), (e)(2).

[4] In re: Aiken Cty., 645 A.2d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2011).

[5] In re: Aiken Cty., No. 11-1271 (D.C. Cir.).  The mandamus case was brought in a single petition against the NRC by three residents of Washington, the States of Washington and South Carolina, and Aiken County, South Carolina, all of whom are directly affected by where nuclear waste is currently being stored in the absence of a long-term storage site.  Nye County, Nevada, where Yucca Mountain is located, was also a petitioner, as was the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners. The prior case, which resulted in the Court’s July 2011 decision, involved multiple separate petitions brought by the residents, the States of Washington and South Carolina, and Aiken County, which named various defendants including the President, the Secretary of Energy and the NRC.

[6] In re: Aiken County, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 16093 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 3, 2012).

[7] Opinion, In re: Aiken Cty., No. 11-1271 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 13, 2013) at 5.  The opinion of the Court was filed by Circuit Judge Kavanaugh, with whom Senior Circuit Judge Randolph joined, except as to Part III of the opinion.  Chief Judge Garland filed a dissenting opinion. 

[8] Id. at 6.

[9] Id. at 6-7.

[10] Id. at 7.

[11] Id.

[12] Id.

[13] Id.

[14] Id.

[15] Id. at 8.

[16] Id.

[17] Id. at 9 (citations omitted).

[18] Id. at 20-21 & n.12.

[19] Id. at 20.

[20] Id.

[21] See D.C. Cir. R. 41(a)(3).

[22] Transcript of Oral Argument, In re: Aiken Cty., No. 11-1271 (D.C. Cir. May 2, 2012) at 27.

[23] See Order of ASLB, In re: U.S. Dep’t of Energy, Docket No. 63-001-HLW, ASLBP No. 09-892-HLW-CAB-04 (June 29, 2010).

[24]Opinion, In re: Aiken Cty., No. 11-1271 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 13, 2013) at 21-22.


DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© K&L Gates LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

K&L Gates LLP

K&L Gates LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.