42 U.S.C. § 10162

Authorization of monitored retrievable storage

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 42 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Nullification of Oak Ridge siting proposal

The proposal of the Secretary (EC–1022, 100th Congress) to locate a monitored retrievable storage facility at a site on the Clinch River in the Roane County portion of Oak Ridge, Tennessee, with alternative sites on the Oak Ridge Reservation of the Department of Energy and on the former site of a proposed nuclear powerplant in Hartsville, Tennessee, is annulled and revoked. In carrying out the provisions of sections 10164 and 10165 of this title, the Secretary shall make no presumption or preference to such sites by reason of their previous selection.

(b) Authorization

The Secretary is authorized to site, construct, and operate one monitored retrievable storage facility subject to the conditions described in sections 10163 through 10169 of this title.

(Pub. L. 97–425, title I, § 142, as added Pub. L. 100–202, § 101(d) [title III, § 300], Dec. 22, 1987, 101 Stat. 1329–104, 1329–121; Pub. L. 100–203, title V, § 5021, Dec. 22, 1987, 101 Stat. 1330–232.)Editorial NotesCodification

Pub. L. 100–202 and Pub. L. 100–203 added identical sections.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 9 cases, 2003–2011 · leading case: Commonwealth Edison Co. v. United States, 56 Fed. Cl. 652 (Fed. Cl. 2003).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Commonwealth Edison Co. v. United States, 56 Fed. Cl. 652 (Fed. Cl. 2003). “Defendant concedes that “DOE has never constructed a MRS [] authorized pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 10162 (b), subject to the licensing and construction requirements of 42 U.”

Tennessee Valley Auth. v. United States, 60 Fed. Cl. 665 (Fed. Cl. 2004). “42 U.S.C. § 10162 (b). However, DOE could not begin construction of this secondary storage facility until it had obtained a license for a permanent facility.”

Sys. Fuels, Inc. v. United States, 79 Fed. Cl. 37 (Fed. Cl. 2007). “1330 -227, 1330-232 (codified at 42 U.S.C. § 10162 (b)). The statutory conditions on the MRS took the form of three principal “linkages” between the DOE’s authority to proceed with a MRS and progress by the DOE on the permanent repository.”

N. States Power Co. v. United States, 78 Fed. Cl. 449 (Fed. Cl. 2007). “The Amendments Act also authorized DOE to site, construct, and operate a single MRS facility, 42 U.S.C. § 10162 (b), provided that DOE not select a site for the MRS facility “until the Secretary recommends to the President the approval of a site for development as a repository,”…”

Sys. Fuels, Inc. v. United States, 79 Fed. Cl. 182 (Fed. Cl. 2007). “1330 -227, 1330-232 (codified at 42 U.S.C. § 10162 (b)). The conditions took the form of linkages between DOE’s authority to proceed with a MRS and progress by DOE on a permanent repository.”

Dominion Resources, Inc. v. United States, 84 Fed. Cl. 259 (Fed. Cl. 2008). “1330 -232 (current version at 42 U.S.C. § 10162 (b) (2006)), which made timely performance of *266 the contract extremely difficult.”

Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC v. United States, 95 Fed. Cl. 160 (Fed. Cl. 2010). “1330 -227, 1330-232 (codified at 42 U.S.C. § 10162 (b)). Congress, however, prohibited the MRS from storing more than 10,000 MTU and also limited DOE’s ability to construct the interim facility until the permanent repository had been licensed for construction.”

Carolina Power & Light Co. v. United States, 98 Fed. Cl. 785 (Fed. Cl. 2011). “at 32-33; 42 U.S.C. §§ 10162 (b), 10168(d)(1), (3).”

Indiana Michigan Power Co. v. United States, 57 Fed. Cl. 88 (Fed. Cl. 2003). “42 U.S.C. § 10162 (b). The conditions included the requirement that a permanent repository be licensed first.”

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.