U.S. Code » Title 42 » Chapter CHAPTER 108— NUCLEAR WASTE POLICY › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER I— DISPOSAL AND STORAGE OF HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE, SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL, AND LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE › Part Part A— Repositories for Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Waste and Spent Nu­clear Fuel

42 U.S.C. § 10139

Judicial review of agency actions

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 42 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Jurisdiction of United States courts of appeals(1) Except for review in the Supreme Court of the United 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;(B) alleging the failure of the Secretary, the President, or the Commission to make any decision, or take any action, required under this part;(C) challenging the constitutionality of any decision made, or action taken, under any provision of this part;(D) for review of any environmental impact statement prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) with respect to any action under this part, or as required under section 10155(c)(1) of this title, or alleging a failure to prepare such statement with respect to any such action;(E) for review of any environmental assessment prepared under section 10132(b)(1) or 10155(c)(2) of this title; or(F) for review of any research and development activity under subchapter II.(2) The venue of any proceeding under this section shall be in the judicial circuit in which the petitioner involved resides or has its principal office, or in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.(c) 11 So in original. No subsec. (b) has been enacted. Deadline for commencing action

A civil action for judicial review described under subsection (a)(1) may be brought not later than the 180th day after the date of the decision or action or failure to act involved, as the case may be, except that if a party shows that he did not know of the decision or action complained of (or of the failure to act), and that a reasonable person acting under the circumstances would not have known, such party may bring a civil action not later than the 180th day after the date such party acquired actual or constructive knowledge of such decision, action, or failure to act.

(Pub. L. 97–425, title I, § 119, Jan. 7, 1983, 96 Stat. 2227.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, referred to in subsec. (a)(1)(D), is Pub. L. 91–190, Jan. 1, 1970, 83 Stat. 852, which is classified generally to chapter 55 (§ 4321 et seq.) of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 4321 of this title and Tables.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 46 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1984–2025 · leading case: Nuclear Energy Inst., Inc. v. Env't Prot. Agency, 373 F.3d 1251 (D.C. Cir. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Nuclear Energy Inst., Inc. v. Env't Prot. Agency, 373 F.3d 1251 (D.C. Cir. 2004). · cites it 9× “NRC argues that Nevada is not entitled to the benefit of the NWPA’s longer, 180-day window for commencing a civil action challenging agency action taken “under” subtitle A of the Act provided in section 119, 1 42 U.S.C. § 10139 (c), because in promulgating part 63 NRC did not…”
In Re Aiken Cnty., 645 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2011). · cites it 8× “Neither the NWPA nor the APA authorizes this type of legal attack.”
Boston Edison Co. v. States, 64 Fed. Cl. 167 (Fed. Cl. 2005). · cites it 4× “Subsection 119(a) provides in pertinent part: (1) Except for review in the Supreme Court of the United 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…”
Cnty. of Esmeralda, State of Nevada v. U.S. Dep't of Energy, Cnty. of Inyo, State of California v. U.S. Dep't of Energy, 925 F.2d 1216 (9th Cir. 1991). · cites it 5× “After 120 days of inaction by the Secretary on its reconsideration request, Inyo County also petitioned this court for review.”
Pub. Citizen v. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n & United States of Am., Nuclear Util. Mgmt. & Resources Comm., Intervenor, 845 F.2d 1105 (D.C. Cir. 1988). · cites it 4× “Viewed as a direct challenge to the Policy Statement, the petition was too late, under either of the two statutes providing jurisdiction: the 180-day time limit of the Waste Act, 42 U.S.C. § 10139 (c) (1982), or the 60-day limit of the Hobbs Act, 28 U.”
Pseg Nuclear, l.l.c. v. United States, 465 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2006). · cites it 3× “42 U.S.C. § 10139 (2000) (emphasis added).”
Alabama Power Co. v. United States Dep't of Energy, 307 F.3d 1300 (11th Cir. 2002). · cites it 2× “1 The petitioners challenge this final agency action pursuant to the NWPA’s judicial review provision, 42 U.S.C. § 10139 . They contend that this “offset” is indistinguishable from a direct payment of NWF monies, and that such payments are unauthorized by law.”
Nebraska Pub. Power Dist. v. United States, 73 Fed. Cl. 650 (Fed. Cl. 2006). · cites it 3× “Several utilities and state commissions, all of whom had paid fees into the Fund pursuant to the NWPA, petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for review of the DOE’s Final Interpretation.”
Delano Farms Co. v. California Table Grape Comm'n, 655 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2011). “In that case, we held that section 702 waived immunity for an action seeking judicial review under section 119 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. § 10139 . In so doing, we specifically held that because the right to judicial review arose under a statute other than the…”
Pub. Citizen v. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n & the United States of Am., Nuclear Util. Mgmt. & Resources Council, Intervenor, 901 F.2d 147 (D.C. Cir. 1990). “§§ 2342 (4), 2344; 42 U.S.C. § 10139 (c). Public Citizen filed its petition for review within 60 days of publication of the revised Policy Statement in 1988, but the NRC and the intervenors claim that it is untimely as not filed within 60 or 180 days of the NRC’s promulgation of…”
Balderas v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n, 59 F.4th 1112 (10th Cir. 2023). · cites it 2× “” 42 U.S.C. § 10139 (a)(1)(D). Section 10155(c)(1) requires an environmental impact statement for certain sites owned by the federal government.”
Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. v. United States, 73 Fed. Cl. 333 (Fed. Cl. 2006). “Several utilities filed suit under the NWPA, 42 U.S.C. § 10139 , challenging the 1995 Final Interpretation in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.”
Show all 46 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.