Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.

Baltimore Gas and Elec. Co. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.

Argued April 19, 1982
Reargued March 1, 1983
Decided June 6, 1983
Full case name Baltimore Gas & Elec. Co., Et Al. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
Citations

462 U.S. 87 (more)

Prior history Natural Resources Defence Council, Inc. v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 685 F.2d 459, 222 U.S. App. D.C. 9 (D.C. Cir. 1982), reversed.
Holding
The NRC complied with NEPA, and its decision is not arbitrary or capricious within the meaning of § 10(e) of the Administrative Procedure Act.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger
Case opinions
Majority O'Connor, joined by Burger, Brennan, White, Marshall, Blackmun, Rehnquist, Stevens
Powell took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Laws applied
National Environmental Policy Act, Administrative Procedures Act

Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 462 U.S. 87 (1983)[1] is a United States Supreme Court decision which held that a Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) rule that, during the licensing of nuclear power plants, the permanent storage of nuclear waste should be assumed to have no environmental impact was valid.

Background

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) at 42 U.S.C. § 4332(c) requires government agencies to consider the environmental impact of any major federal action. For the licensing of nuclear power plants by the NRC, the environmental impact includes activities necessary to produce new nuclear fuel and to dispose of spent nuclear fuel. In 1974 the NRC adopted a rule for determining the environmental impact of the fuel cycle in plant licensing proceedings. For the long-term storage of transuranic and high level radiological wastes, the rule in Table S-3 assumed that there would be no environmental impact due to a "zero release" assumption. This assumption was based upon an expectation that technology would be developed to isolate these wastes from the environment.

The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) filed an action to challenge the Table S-3 rule, leading to the Supreme Court case Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 435 U.S. 519 (1978). In that case the Supreme Court reversed the ruling by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that the NRC rulemaking procedures used to develop the rule were inadequate, stating that the NRC had done everything that was required by NEPA and the Administrative Procedures Act, and that courts lack the authority to impose rulemaking procedures greater than those contemplated by these statutes. The case was remanded for the circuit court to determine whether the Table S-3 rule was adequately supported by the administrative record.

While the Vermont Yankee case was before the Supreme Court, the NRC proposed a new Table S-3 rule, but this new rule maintained the "zero release" assumption for the long-term storage of spent fuel. The NRC also rejected a petition filed by the NRDC that had requested that Table S-3 include uncertainties, or that the nuclear plant licensing proceedings be allowed to consider uncertainties in emissions from spent fuel storage.

The NRDC and the State of New York petitioned for judicial review of the Table S-3 rule in circuit court. The circuit court ruled that "Table S-3 rules were arbitrary and capricious and inconsistent with NEPA because the Commission had not factored the consideration of uncertainties surrounding the zero-release assumption into the licensing process in such a manner that the uncertainties could potentially effect the outcome of any decision to license a particular plant."[1] The Supreme Court on appeal granted certiorari.

Decision

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the circuit court, ruling that the NRC had complied with the requirements of NEPA. The Court explained that the NEPA requires that an agency must consider every significant aspect of the environmental impact of a proposed action, and that the public be informed of this. The role of a court is to ensure that the agency has adequately considered and disclosed the environmental impact of its decision and that the agency's decision was not arbitrary and capricious.

Regarding the Table S-3 rule, it was the result of a lengthy proceeding in which the NRC determined that it was appropriate to generically evaluate the environmental effects of the storage of nuclear wastes and not to evaluate these effects during nuclear power plant licensing proceedings. Under the holding of Vermont Yankee, the NRC's choice to use this generic method in the Table S-3 regulation is valid, and courts do not have the authority to require a different rule under the APA.

See also

References

  1. 1 2 Baltimore Gas & Elec. Co. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 462 U.S. 87 (1983) (Full text of the decision courtesy of Findlaw.com).
This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the 9/6/2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.