ML20046A989
| ML20046A989 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/24/1993 |
| From: | Cordes J NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| SECY-93-180, NUDOCS 9308020217 | |
| Download: ML20046A989 (27) | |
Text
........................
RELEASED TOTHE PDR-
/#pm PEGOg?%,
l i
/ ate /
init%b d
g\\
%iP 1
'E v
......o ADJUDICATORY ISSUE June 24, 1993 (lnfOrnlation)
SECY-93-180 FOR:
The Commission FROM:
John F.
Cordes, Jr.
Solicitor
SUBJECT:
LITIGATION REPORT - 1993 - 10 State of Michican v. United States, No. 91-2281 (6th Cir.,
June 2, 1993)
Three years ago Michigan brought suit in federal district court against the United' States, the NRC and several other agencies.
The suit challenged as unconstitutional the 1985 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act and also demanded that the NRC prepare a fresh NEPA analysis of the agency's Part 61 regulations on waste disposal.
The Supreme Court resolved the constitutional question in New York v. United States, 112 S.
Ct. 2408 (1992),
where it approved the entire 1985 Act except for its "take-title" provision.
The district court threw out the Michigan's NEPA claims for lack of jurisdiction.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (RyaD, Milburn & Coffin, JJ) now has affirmed the district court judgment.
The court ruled that Michigan's challenge to the NRC's Part 61 regulations on NEPA grounds required Michigan first to ask the agency to change its regulations, followed by judicial review directly in the court of appeals.under the exclusive jurisdiction provisions of the Hobbs Act.
The court also ruled l
that Michigan lacked standing "to police the Nuclear Regulatory commission" by disclaiming an attack on agency regulations and seeking NEPA relief in the abstract.
The court reasoned that, j
l l
1 NOTE:
TO BE MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE IN 10 WORKING DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS PAPER lhh9110 9308020217 930624 6
PDR SECY f,
l 93-180 PDR I
= ~...
I 1
l 2
)
i for standing purposes, NEPA reviews "are only significant because i
of their effect on the regulations."
i Michigan has ninety days to seek review in the Supreme' Court.
Attachment:
6th Circuit Decision j
~
Contact:
Susan G.
Fonner i
504-1629
'l Orr v.
NRC, No. 92-1263 (D.C. Cir., June 4, 1993)
This lawsuit seeks judicial review of an NRC adjudicatory
{
decision throwing out as moot the Orrs' request-for a-hearing on i
the extension of Comanche Peak's construction permit..
Egg i
Litigation Report 1993-04, SECY-93-096.
In conjunction with their appeal the Orrs sought a stay of the Comanche Peak i
operating license and summary reversal of the adjudicatory decision.
The court of appeals (Edwards, Williams & D.H.
j Ginsburg, JJ) denied both motions, finding (as we had argued) that petitioners "have not satisfied the stringent standards required for a stay pending court review," and that "[t]he. merits l
. are not so clear as to warrant summary reversal."
The case will now proceed to full briefing and argument.
Attachment:
D.C. Circuit Order
Contact:
Charles E. Mullins 504-1618 Dow v. NRC, Nos. 92-1348 & 92-8045 (D.C. Cir., June 4, 1993)
These were the last remaining of a series of lawsuits filed by the Dows in the last couple of years that sought a shutdown or.
delay in operation of the Comanche Feak nuclear power units.. The suits all proved unsuccessful.
The court of appeals (Edwards, Williams & D.H. Ginsburg) dismissed these remaining suits because of petitioners' failure to provide sufficient information to
l 3
i i
justify their in forma cauceris status.
The court rejected intervenor Texas Utilities' request for sanctions against the Dows.
Attachment:
D.C. Circuit Orders (2)
Contact:
Charles E. Mullins 504-1618 t
Graham v.
NRC, No. 106859 (Mont. Cty. Circuit Court, filed June 7, 1993)
This is a pro se Title VII discrimination suit brought by a former NRC employee.
She brought the case, however, in state court rather than, as required, in federal court.
The United States Attorney's office has notified plaintiff and the state court of this error, and an appropriate motion will be filed if necessary.
1
Attachment:
Notice from Court
Contact:
Karl Farrar 504-1556 Youna v.
NRC, No. 106860 (Mont. Cty. Circuit Court, filed June 7, 1993)
This is another pro se Title VII discrimination suit brought by a former NRC employee.
Like Ms. Graham, however, Ms. Young brought her case in state court rather than, as required, in federal court.
The United States Attorney's office has notified plaintiff and the state court of this error, and an appropriate motion will be filed if necessary.
Attachment:
Notice from Court
Contact:
Brad Fewell 504-1569 O
DISTRIBUTION:
}~)
Commissioners
~ ohn F.
Cordes OGC Solicitor OCAA OIG OPA REGIONAL OFFICES EDO ASLBP SECY
1
\\
L..
l 1
l l
l I
i i
1.
i i
i i
r
-I i
(
l ATTACHMDIT -
State of Michican v. United States, No. 91-2281 (6th Cir., June 2,.1993) l l
l
.J l
1 l
i l
l l
1
i RECOMMENDED FOR FULL. TEXT PU:llCA TION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 24 No. 91-2281 UNITED STATES COURT OF AP' 2M S FOR THE SDCTH CIRCUIT
~
STATE OF MICHIGAN, MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF PUBLic HEALTH, MICHIGAN LOW LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASH AUTHORITY, MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, MICHIGAN NATURAL RESOURCES Commission, ROBERT A.
- BOWMAN, Plaintfs-Appellants, v.
ON APPEAL irom the i
United States District UNTTED STATES OF AMERICA, Court for the Western JAMES D. WATKINS, KENNEW M, District of Michigan CARR, UNITED STATES NUCLEAR l
REGULATORY COMMISSION, SAMUEL SKINNER, RJCHARD
{
THORNBURGH, l
Defendants-Appellees. _
Decided and Filed June 2,1993 1
i I
i 4
1 4
2 MI, et al. v. Unites States, et al.
No. 91-228i Before: MILBURN and RYAN, Circuit Judges; and COFFIN,* Senior Circuit Judge.
RYAN, Circuit Judge. The State of Michigan appeals the portion of the district court's order dismissing two causes of action allegedly arising under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. i 4321 et seg. Michigan had sought a writ of mandamus from the district court compelling the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Department of Energy to prepare two supplemental Environmental Impact Statements that 9 ould consider recent federal enactments requiring states to arrange for the disposal of their own low-level radioactive j
waste (LLRW). The district court dismissed Michigan's 1
NEPA claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and i
lack of Article III standing. The issues before us are: 1) whether Michigan has standing under NEPA to seek a writ of mandamus compelling the United States to prepare environmental impact statements; and, if so, 2) whether the district cocrt has jurisdiction over Michigan's mandamus action.
Because we conclude that Michigan does not have standing in this suit, we shall affirm the district court's dismissal order.
j I.
A.
This case involves three congressional acts: The Atomic I
Energy Act of 1954, 42 U.S.C. 56 2011 et seq.; t' e n
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C.
66 4321 et seq.; and the 1980 LLRW Policy Act and its 1985 amendments, 42 U.S.C. 66 2021b et seg. A brief description of each act is nemary for an understanding of this dispute.
j
- ne Honor Ma Frank M. Conin, Senior United States Circuit Judge for the First Circuit, sitting by designation.
i I
No. 9I-2281 MI, et al. v. Unites States, et al.
3 1.
The Atomic Energy Act and "Part 61" Regulations The purpose of the Atomic Energy Act, 42 U.S.C.
El 2011 et seq., is to promote the use and development of atomic energy. This Act provides the basic authority for federal regulation and licensing of nuclear energy and nuclear materials. In December 1982, under the rule-making authority of the Atomic Energy Act, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations for radioactive waste disposal. promulgated 10 C.F.R. Pt. 61. These "Part 61" regulations set forth "the procedures, criteric, and terms and conditions upon which the Commission issues licenses for the disposal of radioactive wastes." Id.
The Part 61 regulations resulted from rule-making proceedings, which included the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's preparation of a 1982 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
This 1982 EIS provided a general evaluation of the environmental effects of the Part 61 regulations.
- 2. The National Environmental Po! Icy Act and "Part 51" Regulations NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 66 4321 et seq., provides for a national policy that encourages " productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment." See Pacific Legal Found. v. Andrur, 657 F.2d 829, 837 (6th Cir.
1981).
NEPA provides that when a federal agency undertakes
- major federal action [] significantly affecting the quality of the human environment," it must prepare an EIS concerning that action.
42 U.S.C. I 4332(2)(C).
Thus, NEPA is a procedural statute that is oesigned to ensure that federal agencies consider the environmental impact of their actions. 'Ihe impact statement is evidence that the agency considered environmental concerns.
The Council on Environmental Quality promulgated regulations to establish a framework for feceral agency compliance with NEPA. 40 C.F.R. Pt.1500. These regulations provide that an agency has a mandatory duty
i
~
\\
l 4
MI. et al. v. Unites States. et al.
No. 9 I-228 t
\\
to prepase or supplement an EIS when "significant new
]
circumstances" arise that bear on environmental concerns.
40 C.F.R. I 1502.9(c)(1)(ii). The Nuclear Regulatory Commission also established its own regulations, " Pan 51" regulations, to ensure self-compliance with NEPA requirements. See 10 C.F.R. Pt. 51. For example, Part 51 regulations require the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to augment its 1982 EIS whenever it issues or rer.ews a Part 61 license to a disposal facility. See 10 C.F.R. il 51.20(b)(11),51.80(a).
1
- 3. 'Ibe 1980 and 1985 LLRW Policy Acts While the Atomic Energy Act establishes the authority for federal regulation and licensing of nuclear materials and waste, the Policy Acts of 1980 and 1985 create incentives for states to provide for the disposal of LLRW.
LLRW is a hazardous by-product of atomic energy research and development. Much of the LLRW generated in Michigan is generated at nuclear power plants licensed and regulated by the Commission.
As of 1991, there were three sites in the United States for the disposal of LLRW-South Carolina, Washington, and Nevada.
Because the nation needed additional disposal facilities, Congress enacted the LLRW Policy Act of 1980 to give states direct responsibility for disposmg of the LLRW generated within each state. The 1980 Policy Act makes each state responsible for providing for LLRW disposal, either within or outside the state's borders. 42 U.S.C. I 2021d.
It also allows states to enter into I
interstate regional compacts to provide for ' regional dispoal facilities. 42 U.S.C. I 2021d(a)(2). The 1980 Policy Act relied on state cooperation for its i
implementation;- however, the Act's incentives proved inadequate to ensure state compliance.
In response, Congress enacted the 1985 LLRW Act. In the 1985 Act, Congress included milestones, incentives, and penalties to ensure that each state complied with the Policy Act's requirements by 1995. For example, the 1985 Policy Act i
provides that, if a state fails to provide for the disposal of
No. 91-228l Mi, et al. v. Unites States, et al.
5 all LLRW generated within its borders by a specific date, it will be required to take title to the LLRW it generates.
42 U.S.C. 5 2021e(d)(2)(C).1 Or, the 1985 Act provides that the three states who presently have disposal sites--
South Carolina, Washington, and Nevada--can charge states who fail to comply with the statutory deadlines multiple surcharges for use of the disposal facilities and eventually deny noncomplying states access to the facilities. 42 U.S.C. f 2021e(e)(2).
B. Michigan's lawsuit In 1982, in an effort to comply with the 1980 Policy Act, Michigan entered into a Midwest Compact with
- lowa, Minnesota,
- Missouri, and Wisconsin. In 1987, the compact selected Michigan as the region's disposal facility site. Michigan began to take measures so that it could meet its obligations under the compact. Although the compact met two " milestones" required under the 1985 Policy Act, the compact did not meet the third milestone, which required the compact to submit, by a certain date, a com Part 61 disposal facility license. pleted application for a Because Michigan was not prepared to submit a license application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, each compact member had to certify that it was capable of providing for disposal of the LLRW generated within its borders by 1993.
The Department of Energy accepted these certifications.
As compact negotiations continued, Michigan rejected three proposed sites for a disposal facility and continually failed to advance the siting process.
Finding that Michigan failed to meet its responsibilities as the designated host state, the other members of the com voted in April 1991 to revoke Michigan's membership. pact i
1 Recatl, the Supreme Court held that this *take title
- pmvision of the Poli t is unconnututioant. See New Yort v. United States, 112 S. Ct.
8 (1992).
)
l i
I
i 1
6 MI et d. v. Unites States, et al.
No. 9 l-228 t By this time, Michigan had filed suit 2 against the United States (the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and
)
the Depa tment of Energy) in the Westem District of j
Michigan. Counts I through V sought declarations that the 1985 Policy Act amendments violated constitutional principles of federalism by imposing impermissible responsibilities on the States. Counts VI and VII set forth Michigan's claims under NEPA, which requires that a l
federal agency prepare an EIS whenever that agency contemplates taking " major" federal action which may significantly affect the quality of the human environment.
See 42 U.S.C. 6 4332. Michigan sought mandamus relief to compel the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the i
Department of Energy to prepare two separate EISes before January 1,1992-
- 1) a supplement to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's 1982 EIS reevaluating the environmental effects of the Part 61 licensing regulations in light of declining LLRW volumes and in light of the projected increase in disposal facilities resulting from the Policy Act's requirements; and
- 2) a programmatic EIS considering the potential impact of all proposed LLRW disposal facilities on the disposal of LLRW in light of the declining j
i LLRW volumes.
Michigan claimed that it should be " relieved from its obligations under the 1985 Act pending the outcome of the obligations of the [ Commission] to prepare" the EISes. 'Ihe United States moved to dismiss the NEPA cinms for lack of subject matterjurisdiction and failure to staic a claim. The district court granted the motion to dimtiss, finding that Michigan's constitutional challenges "o the Policy Act, Counts I through V, were without merit.
Michigan v. United States, 773 F. Supp. 997 (W.D. Mich.1991). With regard to Counts VI and VII, 2tn April 1990.
I
1 t
i No. 91-228i MI, et d. v. Unites States, er d.
7 the district court concluded that Michigan had standing to assert its NEPA claims only if the claims were interpreted as pan of an effort to force revisions to the Part 61 regulations.
Because the relevant jurisdictional statutes require that requests for revisions to the regulations be raised first before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in administrative proceedings, with direct judicial review in a court of appeals, the district court found that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Michigan's NEPA claims.
Id. at 1004. The court concluded that if, as Michigan claimed, Michigan's NEPA claims were not a challenge to the regulations, Michigan lacked Article III standing, and the court had no power to decide the case. Id.
Michigan appeals the portion of the order disposing of its NEPA claims.3 II.
A.
Michigan argues that the district court erred when it dismissed Count VI, which sought a writ of mandamus compelling the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to i
supplement the 1982 EIS. Michigan also argues that the district court should not have dismissed Count VII, which sought an order directing the Commission, with the assistance of the Department of Energy, impact of all to prepare a
" programmatic" EIS that considers the potential LLRW facilities that are to be developed as a result of the 1985 Policy Act.
3The district court found the contested provisions of the 1915 Policy Act constitutional. Howver, in New Yor* v. Umrd Staser, 112 S.
Ct. 2408 (1992), the Supretne Court struck down i 2021e(d)(2)(O of the 1985 LLRW Act, which would have required states that failed to provide for disposal of 1 LRW generated within i
their borders to take title of the waste beginning in 1996. De Supreme Court upbeid the Act's other provisions. Thus. New Yor*
readered Michigan's constitutional claims moot, and Michigan does not attempt to raise those claims in this appeal.
\\
8 MI, et al. v. Unites States. et al.
No. 9I-2281 Michigan argues that it has standing to insist that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission supplement its 1982 EIS to make sure that the EIS supports the existing Pan 61 regulations. According to Michigan, the Commission has a mandatory duty to supplement the 1982 EIS because the NEPA regulations that were promulgated by the Council on Environmental Quality mandate all federal agencies to I
prepare supplements to EISes if *[t]here are significant new circumstances relevant to environmental concerns" that bear on the agency's proposed action. See 40 C.F.R. i 1502.9(c)(1)(ii). Michigan argues that the Commission's " potential future federal actions of licensing [LLRW) disposal facilities
- constitute the " major federal actions" significantly affecting the quality of the human environment that trigger the NEPA's EIS requirement. Furthermore, because of the 1985 Policy Act, Michigan may be subject to the Part 61 licensing regulations, which were based on the 1982 EIS; therefore, according to Michigan, it has standing to insist on full implementation of the NEPA as it relates to Michigan, the 1985 Policy Act, and Part 61 regulations.
The United States argues that Michigan, who has yet to apply for a dismsal facility license, has no standing because its comp aint fails to a!!ege any concrete injury to its resources or residents that might be redressed by preparation of the EISes: "[ Michigan]'s assertion of an abstract interest in the proper operation of the NEPA process, unrelated to the enytronmental impacts that the EIS[e]s in question would analyze, is insufficient to J
establish standing under Article IU."
According to the United States, Michigan is not concerned about NEPA's requirements regarding any alleged major federal action undertaken by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission or the Department of Energy; rather, Michigan is really concemed with avoidmg its responsibilities under the Policy Act, which places responsibility for LLRW disposal on.the individual states, i
No. 9I-228i MI, et al. v. Unites States, et al.
9 B.
1.
The question whether Michigan has standing to assert its NEPA claims is an issue of law subject to de impo review. Bodie-Rickett & Assoc. v. Mars, Inc., 957 F.2d 287,289 (6th Cir.1992). Under the Atomic Energy Act, challenges to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's administrative actions must be brought before the Commission for an initial proceeding.
42 U.S.C.
I 2239(a).
Review of the Commission's final order-entered in a ?roceeding "for the issuance or modification of rules anc, regulations dealing with the activity of li e.asees"--is " subject to judicial review in the manner prescribed in [the Hobbs Act)." 42 U.S.C. (( 2239(a),
(b).
The Hobbs Act provides that federal couns of appeals exercise " exclusive jurisdiction" over final orders of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
28 U.S.C.
f 2342(4); see Florida Power & Light Co. v. Lorion,470 U.S. 729, 746 (1985). The district coun characterized Michigan's action as a challenge to the Commission's Part j
61 regulations. As a result, the coun determined that it did not have jurisdiction over the NEPA claims because the judicial review rules of the Hobbs Act applied.
Michigan,773 F. Supp. at 1004.
Michigan has not filed for a license to construct a disposal facility, and it claims that it has no desire, at this time, to challenge the regulations. But Michigan fails to specify what injury it suffers from the defendants' failure to prepare EISes. Any potential injury to Michigan would arise Irom the implementation of the Pan 61 regulations, not from an EIS independent of the regulations.
The district coun correctly found that a challenge to the Commission's reguladons, which were based on the 1982 EIS, presents the only action which directly touches upon Mictugan's responsibtlities. The district court's finding is supported by Michigan's complaint, which provides in relevant part:
4
1 10 MI. et al. v. Unites States, et al No. 9l.2281 150. The proliferation of LLRW Disposal Facilities and reduced volumes of LLRW directly impacts the [ Commission's] Pan 61 Regulations, including, but not limited to, the financial assurance regulations and regulations pertaining to environmental safety at the LLRW Disposal Facilities, thereby requiring a supplement to the 1982 EIS.
If-5 proliferation of LLRW Disposal R.- ut
.id seduction in projected volumes of LLRW nas a direct bearing on the im (Commission's] Pan 61 Regulations,.pa:ts of the These impacts on the regulations mandate that the 1982
)
EIS be supplemented, j
i (Emphasis added.) Michigan's complaint establishes that its real concern is with the EISes' effects on the licensing regulations.
The action is, therefore, subject to the judicial review provisions of the Hobbs Act.
Michigan agrees that the district court would not have jurisdiction if Michigan was challenging the Part 61 regulations Commission. promulgated by the Nuclear Regulatory Michigan repeatedl it is not attacking the regulations; y argues, however, that rather, it is asserting its right to insist that the Commission and the Department of Energy com regulations.* ply with the requirements of NEPA and its Consec uently, the precise issue before this court is whether Mic tigan has standing under the NEPA to seek an order to compel the Commission to prepare EISes even though Michigan is not challenging the regulations that are affected by the EISes.
More specifically, the issue is whether Michigan identifies a j
concrete injury that could be redressed by the district court.
4Michiran also argues that the well-established jurisdictional principles eTo not opply in this case because the Commission never issued a final order. However, the Commission never issued an order disporing of Michigan's NEPA claims ten = Michigan never presented them to the Commission.
No. 9I-2281 MI. et al. v. Unites States, et al.
t1 2.
Standing, which comes from Article III's requirement i
that federal courts determine only those issues that arise in 5 is a threshold require a " case or controversy,"icle III's standing requ, ment to any suit.
To meet An
- irement, Michigan must' demonstrate a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy.'"
Woods v. Milner, 955 F.2d 436, 439 (6th Cir.1992) (citation omitted). To demonstrate this " personal stake," Michigan must establish: 1) that it "' personally... suffered some actual or threatened injury as a result of the putatively illegal conduct of the defendant'"; 2) that the injury is fairly trace [able) to the challenged action; and 3) that the injury can likely be redressed by a favorable decision.
Id.
(quoting Valley Forge Gristian College v. Americans Unitedfor Separation of Ourch and State, Inc., 454 U.S.
464, 472 (1982) (citation omitted)).
Michigan argues that it has standing "by virtue of the -
fact that the regulations to which the EIS apply are applicable to it and Michigan has a right to insist upon the full implementation of the [NEPA] as it directly relates to Michigan."
According to Michigan, *merely insisting upon appropriate implementation of NEPA" is enough to confer standing. Michigan also argues that it does not challenge the regulations themselves, which are affected by the Elses, and whether it will ever challenge the regulations is " irrelevant."
5*The judicial Power [of the United States shall extend to all Canes, in Law and Eqmty, arising under this Co)nsutution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or wtuch shall be made, under their Authority;-to all Cases affecting Amhammadars, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;-to Controversies to which the United States shall be a
--to Controversies between two or more States;-between a State Partyditizens of another State;-t.=
Citizens of different States;-
and betmen Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under the Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizes thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjecta.*
U.S. Const. Art. HI, i 2.
l l
I2 MI, et al. v. Unites States, et al.
No. 9122gg As the district court found, Michigan failed to identify any harm or immediate threat of harm to its resources or its residents that the preparation of an EIS could alleviate:
requires [the Nuclear Regulatory Commission]
implemen[tand update the 1982 EIS when warranted, there is no indication from the complaint, or from the arguments made before the Court, that plaintiff is m any way injured by defendant's alleged failure to amend the EIS. 'Ihe
[ Commission] does not owe plaintiff a sxcific duty to supplement the 1982 EIS and paintiff cannot establish that Congress intended to grant any person or state standing to sue the
[ Commission) based on an alleged failure to properly implement the NEPA.
Michigan, 773 F. Supp. at 1004.
Although Michigan alleges that it is not challenging the Part 61 regulations, significant because of their effect on the regulation update of the EIS by itself has no effect on the rights or i
obligations of Michigan unless Michigan seeks a license under the requirements of the regulations. With respect to Supreme Court has stated: agency action and the traditional role of 3 i
Except where Congress explicitly provides for our correction of the administrative process at a higher level of generality, we intervene in the administration of the laws only when and to the extent that, a specific " final agency ac, tion" has an actual or immediately threatened effect.
Lujan v. National Wildlife Fed'n, 497 U.S. 871, 894 (1990).
Michigan does not have standing to police the Nuclear Regulatory Commission or the Department of Energy, and Congress did not provide federal courts with any authority to ensure that regulations promulgated under NEPA or the Atomic Energy Act are followed.
j
No. 91-228i MI, et al v. Unites States, et d.
13 LU.
We conclude, therefore, that Michigan does not h:ve standing to compel the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Depanment of Energy to complete the EISes when Michigan is not challenging the regulations that those statements would impact.
We also conclude the district court properly found that Michigan's NEPA claims really involved a challenge to the Commission's regulations; therefore, under NEPA and the Hobbs Act, Michigan must seek relief through a petition to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission with review of any adverse agency action in the court of appeals. For these reasons, we AFFIRM the decision of the district court.
. ~.
W l
s i
i t
1 4
l 1
r l_
I l
ATTACHMENT -
1 Orr v. NRC, No. 92-1263 (D.C. Cir., June 4,.1993)
..,,. ~,.
0 Knifeb $tates @ourf of Meals TOR THE Of$iRICT Of COLUMBIA circuli N o. 93-1263 September Term,19 92 United States Courtof Appeals For the District of Columbia (treult B.
Irene Orr; D.
I. Orr, ggg Petitioners RON GARVIN ctInx v.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission; United States of America, Respondents Texas Utilities Electric Company,
\\
Intervenor BEFORE:
Edwards, Williams and D. H. Ginsburg, Circuit Judges ORDER Upon consideration of the motion to stay, the motion for summary reversal, the memorandum in support thereof, and the responses thereto, it is ORDERED that the motion for stay be denied.
Petitioners have not satisfied the stringent standards required for a stay pending court review.
S_9_q Cuomo v.
United States Nuclear Eggplatory Comm'n, 772 F.2d 972 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (per curiam);
Washincton Metro. Area Transit comm'n v. Holiday Tours. Inc., 559 F.2d 841, 843 (D.C. Cir. 1977);
D.C. Circuit Handbook of Practice and Internal Procedures 38-39 (1987).
It is FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for summary reversal be denied.
The merits of the parties' positions are not so clear as to warrant summary action.
S3a Cascade Broadcastina Grouo. Ltd.
- v. FCC, 822 F.2d 1172, 1174 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (per curiam); Walker
- v. Washincton, 627 F.2d 541, 545 (D.C. Cir.) (per curiam), cert.
denied, 449 U.S. 994 (1980).
Knifeb $ fates @mtri of " Appeals e
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA circuli N o.,, _,,,,
September Term,19,,
Because the court has determined that summary disposition by a motions panel is not in order, the Clerk is instructed to calendar this case for presentation to a merits panel.
Per curiam
(
PU
)Y G
W W
.l 4
t i
I i
i o
ATTACHMENT -
Dow v. NRC, Nos. 92-1348 & 92-8045 (D.C. Cir., June 4, 1993) l l
1 l
j
.l i
i j
1 Knifeb j3 fairs (fourt of hcals f
IOR THE DilfRfCT of COLUMBIA circuli N o.
,2-13 4 s September Term,19 s2 United States Court of Appeals Sandra Long Dow, doing business as m amm#
Disposable Workers of Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station; Fjt[g JUN 04 1993 R. Micky Dow, RON GARVIN CLERK Petitioners v.
i Nuclear Regulatory Commission; United States of America, Respondents
\\
Texas Utilities Electric Company, Intervenor BEFORE:
Edwards, Williams and D. H. Ginsburg, Circuit Judges ORDER Upon consideration of the motion for sanctions,
- thereto, the response petitioner R. Micky Dow's response thereto,the court's order to show ca 1993, and it is ORDERED that the order to show cause be discharged.
It.is FURTHER ORDERED, order filed August 18 on the court's own motion, that the court's
- 1992, granted petitioners' m,otions to proceed in forma naucerisbe vacated in part,' insof
("IFP"),
of petitioners' deliberate failure to disclose in theirand that this petition fo applications for IFP status their ownership of certain real-
.. j
Krtitch $ fates @mtri of gpcals FOR THE DISTRICT Of COLUMBIA CIRCUIT September Term,19 No.
92-8045
,2 i
Unitedstatesgemgy,g pp for the District of Columbia Circult Sandra Long Dow, doing business as Disposable Workers of comanche Peak M B JUN 04 g' Stear Electric Station; R. Micky Dow, RON GARVIN Petitioners CLERK v.
United States Nuclear Regulatory commission, Respondent BEFORE:
Edwards, Williams and D. H. Ginsburg, Circuit Judges ORDER Upon consideration of the motions to proceed in forma pauperis, the court's order filed March 2, 1993, and petitioner R. Micky Dow's response thereto, it is ORDERED that the motions to proceed in forma pauperis be denied, and the petition for review dismissed, for the reasons stated in the court's order filed this date in No. 92-1348, _Dow
- v. Nuclear Reculatory Comm'n.
The Clerk is directed to return to petitioners the lodged petition for review.
Because no petition for review in forma nauceris has been allowed, no mandate shall issue.
Per curiam i
ATTACHMENT -
Graham v. NRC, No. 106859 (Mont. Cty. Circuit Court, filed June 7, 1993) i
o R.twD (M fA* % %p.lfwm Gmmy so 6-:' _ &
M dindh.lfo y W 2 M JO Date:
June 7, 1993 L
In Re:
Shawneequa M.
Graham vs Nuclear Regulatory Commission United States
~
)
i
Dear Sirs / Madam:
This is to notify you that our office has received the Appeal and assigned it Civil Case Number 106859 Very truly yours, CC:
Bettie A. Skelton, Clerk a ;s u Shawneequa M.
Graham M
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission
t i
i 4
.i
-l l
l
^!
i
)
4 3
2 t
t 4
e i
l 1
t ATTACHMENT -
Youna v. NRC, No. 106860 (Mont. Cty. Circuit Court, filed June 7, 1993) k
'l 4
i 1
)
i 1
1 1
s,'
1 A
a nn wy Gwny
%4 ftAo Gmue %p@.Ifonye a h io,
%4th.ItaytadxtPa Date:
6/7/93 In Re: YVONNE YOUNG VS NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Dear This is to notify you that our office has received the Appeal and assigned it Civil Case Number in69An very truly yours, Bettie A.
Skelton, Clerk CC YVONNE YOUNG NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION e
D